similar to: Samba on NAS perfs

Hello, I'm testing a two nodes glusterfs distributed cluster (version 3.3.1-1) on Debian 7. The two nodes write on the same iscsi volume on a SAN. When I try to write an 1G file with dd, I have the following results : NFS : 107 Mbytes/s Gluster client : 8 Mbytes/sec My /etc/fstab on the client : /etc/glusterfs/cms.vol /data/cms glusterfs defaults 0 0 I'd like to use the gluster

Hello, I sent the following message to the Debian folks. They don't think that the Debian packaging could be responsible for the issue described there. > Well, I'm not completely convinced that we will have very useful input > for you. I don't really see any reason for this to be caused by the > Debian packaging. To check this, why not compile samba from sources,

Hi all, I am trying to come up with an architecture that has some redundancy. The idea is to hook up the two GbE LAN interfaces of a CentOS server to two Gigabit Ethernet switches. In case one switch goes down, there is a redundant path (the server is redundant too). Here is the idea: ----------- | GbE | PCs

Subject: [Sharing] CentOS 8.2 (2004) Linux Server is Compatible with Dell PowerEdge R640 1U Server Good day from Singapore, I have just installed CentOS 8.2 (2004) Linux Server on Dell PowerEdge R640 1U Server for "Donald Trump and Xi Jinping Investment Company LLP" (fictitious/fictional company name used) in Singapore on 11 August 2020 Tuesday. I can confirm that CentOS 8.2

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 21:46:19 +0800 Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming <ceo at teo-en-ming.com> wrote: > Subject: [Sharing] CentOS 8.2 (2004) Linux Server is Compatible with > Dell PowerEdge R640 1U Server This server should be fully ok to run RHEL8 and CentOS8. What exactly goes wrong? https://access.redhat.com/ecosystem/hardware/2941651 /Peter K > Good day from Singapore, >

There are no issues so far. I am just reporting that CentOS 8.2 (2004) is compatible with Dell PowerEdge R640 after installing it. On 2020-08-12 22:13, Peter Kjellstr?m wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 21:46:19 +0800 > Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming <ceo at teo-en-ming.com> wrote: > >> Subject: [Sharing] CentOS 8.2 (2004) Linux Server is Compatible with >> Dell

Hi All, I apologize in advance if this strays too far from the etiquette on the Xen userlist, however the amount of help, brainpower and experience I''ve received from this list with Xen and "peripheral" related issues (i.e. DRBD) have been worth more than it''s weight on gold and I''m hoping someone will be kind enough to give me a "best practices"

From: Bruno Delbono <bruno.s.delbono at mail.ac> > I'm really sorry to start this thread again but I found something very > interesting I thought everyone should ^at least^ have a look at: > http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2005/06/4-dual-xeon-vs-e4500.html > This article takes into account a comparision of 4 dual xeon vs. e4500. > The author (not me!) talks about "A

I've got a pair of HA servers I'm trying to get into production. Here are some specs : Xeon X3210 Quad Core (aka Core 2 Quad) 2.13Ghz (four logical processors, no Hyper Threading) 4GB memory Hardware (3ware) Raid 1 mirror, 2 x Seagate 750GB SATA2 650GB DRBD partition run on top of an LVM2 partition. CentOS 5.2 2.6.18-92.1.6.el5.centos.plus DRBD 8.2 (drbd82-8.2.6-1.el5.centos) Kernel

Hi all, I''ve been spending quite a lot of time trying to install a decent RoR server on my dedicated server (Ubuntu 6.06 LTS), and now, everything works. However, the performances are not really what I had expected... I would like to know what you think about it. Here is my config: 2GHz VIA proc, 1Gb RAM, SATA-II HD. I have apt-got ruby 1.8.4, mysql5 and installed rails 1.1.4 by

Dear all, we are trying to get our virtual machines to work performant with our 10 GbE cards (lspci says: NetXen Incorporated NX3031 Multifunction 1/10-Gigabit Server Adapter (rev 42)). When doing some benchmarks it was noticed that especially on the receiving side, the virtualization layer hits a significant performance impact and therefore we went for a PCI passthrough, so that the VMs can

Despite Joe Landman's sage advice to the contrary, I'm trying to convince an IPoIB volume to service requests from a GbE client via some /etc/hosts manipulation. (This may or may not be related to the automount problems we're having as well.) This has worked (and continues to work) well on another cluster with a slightly older version of gluster - the 3.3.0qa42 version on both server

Since good server designs have come up in the past, I wanted to point out a "low-cost" server option that has good I/O, and the vendor offers _your_choice_ of not only Fedora Core or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but _also_ CentOS _shipped_ with it! IN-A-NUTSHELL ... Starting at just over $750, you can get a single Socket-939 Opteron 1xx (dual-core is an option) system with up to 4GiB of

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:33:58 -0700 xiangxia.m.yue at gmail.com wrote: > From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue at gmail.com> > > This patch improves the guest receive and transmit performance. > On the handle_tx side, we poll the sock receive queue at the > same time. handle_rx do that in the same way. > > We set the poll-us=100us and use the iperf3 to test Where/how do

Hello, I just wanted to check in on this list and see what folks know about the new severe performance problems with OS X 10.11.5. There's a comment on Reddit claiming that 10.11.5 is requiring SMB signing, but I haven't found documentation on that. I myself saw performance on my 10 GbE go from 800 MB/s on 10.11.4 to 60 MB/s on 10.11.5. My NAS is running Samba 4.3.6 on FreeNAS, which is

I did some testing using samba-3.0.0 as a server and two identical clients one Running W2K and other running Win XP pro. If I write a big file using the W2K client, I'm getting about 25 Mbytes/sec but if I run the same testing using the Win XP Pro, this client only is able to get 12.5 Mbytes/sec. There is a problem between XP and samba?

From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue at gmail.com> This patch improves the guest receive and transmit performance. On the handle_tx side, we poll the sock receive queue at the same time. handle_rx do that in the same way. We set the poll-us=100us and use the iperf3 to test its bandwidth, use the netperf to test throughput and mean latency. When running the tests, the vhost-net kthread of

I went to the site to subscribe again and ended up watching some of Jeremy's Google interviews. I particularly enjoyed the interview with James and the bow tie lesson at the end. :) So anyway, I recently upgraded my home network to end-to-end GbE. My clients are Windows XP SP3 w/hot fixes, and my Samba server is 3.5.6 atop vanilla kernel.org Linux 3.2.6 and Debian 6.0.6. With FDX fast

Hi, We''re setting up fairly large Lustre 2.1.2 filesystems, each with 18 nodes and 159 resources all in one Corosync/Pacemaker cluster as suggested by our vendor. We''re getting mixed messages on how large of a Corosync/Pacemaker cluster will work well between our vendor an others. 1. Are there Lustre Corosync/Pacemaker clusters out there of this size or larger? 2.

Import "exploiting the new interface in vnc.c" from qemu mainstream. git-svn-id: svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/qemu/trunk@6337 c046a42c-6fe2-441c-8c8c-71466251a162 Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> --- diff -r 07a126ac0425 console.c --- a/console.c Mon Feb 16 11:39:06 2009 +0000 +++ b/console.c Mon Feb 16 12:07:19 2009 +0000 @@ -1310,6 +1310,9