TexasUnraid

Been using this since I got unraid setup. Takes daily snapshots and no issues at all. Only real lesson is that you have to clear snapshots to regain space from deleted files but that should go without saying.

It is still quite a bit faster for those plotting without a ramdisk as well from the testing I have seen. The ramdisk just allows you to take it to the next level. It is much simpler since you only need to run a single plot at a time and no worries about parallel plotting.

Setup a basic watch script that automatically moves finished plots into my farm drive, not perfect since I have to manually update the name of the drive when I move to a new one but good enough for now. Can confirm it is doing a plot every 38-40 mins with the plots coping in the background. On track for 36 plots a day on this one machine and should be able to do a bit better then that on my main server if the docker is able to utilize both CPU's.

Guess the only way to know if a ramdisk on a single machine or drives on multiple is better is to try it. Have a feeling since it was already CPU limited with the current setup that running multiple machines is going to be the best option since it gives more raw CPU power. I would still swap over to madmax with multiple machines though, others tested it using disks only and saw a significant improvement. Can't hurt to try both ways though.

So think I have settled on a setup until the extra ram gets in and I move to a ramdisk, just going to leave the destination blank so the files stay in the temp1 folder and then manually move them over to my farming drive (most liekly setup an automated rsync job for this later) so that it does not delay the next plot. Not sure how I will do this with the ramdisk, might have to setup a watch task. Running 32 threads and 128 buckets, 110gb ramdisk for temp 2 and 10x sas 10k drives in raid0 for temp1.

and last test I could come up with until the new ram shows up, 256 buckets. Same time as the 128 buckets. Seems madmax is pretty well optimized, you set it and forget it lol. Number of Threads: 32 Number of Buckets: 2^8 (256) Pool Public Key: Farmer Public Key: Working Directory: /media/chia/300gbx10/ Working Directory 2: /media/chia/ramdisk/ Plot Name: [P1] Table 1 took 15.1229 sec [P1] Table 2 took 138.694 sec, found 4295017933 matches [P1] Table 3 took 159.277 sec, found 4294990274 matches [P1] Table 4 took 179.729 sec, found 4295070075 matches [P1] Table 5 took 174.857 sec, found 4295000949 matches [P1] Table 6 took 170.619 sec, found 4295019399 matches [P1] Table 7 took 146.804 sec, found 4295078917 matches Phase 1 took 985.183 sec [P2] max_table_size = 4295078917 [P2] Table 7 scan took 9.45483 sec [P2] Table 7 rewrite took 45.7111 sec, dropped 0 entries (0 %) [P2] Table 6 scan took 31.9759 sec [P2] Table 6 rewrite took 51.6471 sec, dropped 581272676 entries (13.5336 %) [P2] Table 5 scan took 30.7285 sec [P2] Table 5 rewrite took 49.8006 sec, dropped 761958084 entries (17.7406 %) [P2] Table 4 scan took 30.9325 sec [P2] Table 4 rewrite took 49.0456 sec, dropped 828924580 entries (19.2994 %) [P2] Table 3 scan took 31.4239 sec [P2] Table 3 rewrite took 48.7224 sec, dropped 855076257 entries (19.9087 %) [P2] Table 2 scan took 41.9014 sec [P2] Table 2 rewrite took 48.3117 sec, dropped 865606515 entries (20.1537 %) Phase 2 took 492.633 sec Wrote plot header with 268 bytes [P3-1] Table 2 took 67.1143 sec, wrote 3429411418 right entries [P3-2] Table 2 took 46.8924 sec, wrote 3429411418 left entries, 3429411418 final [P3-1] Table 3 took 59.1986 sec, wrote 3439914017 right entries [P3-2] Table 3 took 45.9073 sec, wrote 3439914017 left entries, 3439914017 final [P3-1] Table 4 took 61.5261 sec, wrote 3466145495 right entries [P3-2] Table 4 took 46.2073 sec, wrote 3466145495 left entries, 3466145495 final [P3-1] Table 5 took 61.33 sec, wrote 3533042865 right entries [P3-2] Table 5 took 47.7984 sec, wrote 3533042865 left entries, 3533042865 final [P3-1] Table 6 took 65.2404 sec, wrote 3713746723 right entries [P3-2] Table 6 took 49.4234 sec, wrote 3713746723 left entries, 3713746723 final [P3-1] Table 7 took 70.0219 sec, wrote 4295078917 right entries [P3-2] Table 7 took 57.5985 sec, wrote 4294967296 left entries, 4294967296 final Phase 3 took 685.036 sec, wrote 21877227814 entries to final plot [P4] Starting to write C1 and C3 tables [P4] Finished writing C1 and C3 tables [P4] Writing C2 table [P4] Finished writing C2 table Phase 4 took 104.109 sec, final plot size is 108835830348 bytes Total plot creation time was 2267.07 sec

Seeing as madmax plotter is CPU limited, you might get better performance leaving the setup you have now actually if you are not able to plot on each machine to get the total CPU power out of all of them. You don't have to use a ramdisk with madmax, it works with normal disks as well but you will be disk IO limited naturally. Still faster then the stock plotter.

Tried 32 buckets, was much slower so cancled. Here is 64 buckets, slightly slower. Number of Threads: 32 Number of Buckets: 2^6 (64) Pool Public Key: Farmer Public Key: Working Directory: /media/chia/300gbx10/ Working Directory 2: /media/chia/ramdisk/ Plot Name: plot-k32-2021-06-12-13-12- [P1] Table 1 took 14.4438 sec [P1] Table 2 took 144.622 sec, found 4294986549 matches [P1] Table 3 took 178.015 sec, found 4294939794 matches [P1] Table 4 took 247.549 sec, found 4294893962 matches [P1] Table 5 took 248.196 sec, found 4294850013 matches [P1] Table 6 took 239.747 sec, found 4294724146 matches [P1] Table 7 took 162.541 sec, found 4294528449 matches Phase 1 took 1235.13 sec [P2] max_table_size = 4294986549 [P2] Table 7 scan took 9.32583 sec [P2] Table 7 rewrite took 44.9001 sec, dropped 0 entries (0 %) [P2] Table 6 scan took 34.0039 sec [P2] Table 6 rewrite took 50.9818 sec, dropped 581287507 entries (13.5349 %) [P2] Table 5 scan took 30.7546 sec [P2] Table 5 rewrite took 48.4746 sec, dropped 761975514 entries (17.7416 %) [P2] Table 4 scan took 31.4604 sec [P2] Table 4 rewrite took 48.2638 sec, dropped 828823335 entries (19.2979 %) [P2] Table 3 scan took 31.1949 sec [P2] Table 3 rewrite took 48.3881 sec, dropped 855070966 entries (19.9088 %) [P2] Table 2 scan took 39.4885 sec [P2] Table 2 rewrite took 48.5345 sec, dropped 865582338 entries (20.1533 %) Phase 2 took 488.326 sec Wrote plot header with 268 bytes [P3-1] Table 2 took 63.4384 sec, wrote 3429404211 right entries [P3-2] Table 2 took 44.863 sec, wrote 3429404211 left entries, 3429404211 final [P3-1] Table 3 took 57.2278 sec, wrote 3439868828 right entries [P3-2] Table 3 took 45.8666 sec, wrote 3439868828 left entries, 3439868828 final [P3-1] Table 4 took 56.8793 sec, wrote 3466070627 right entries [P3-2] Table 4 took 44.9251 sec, wrote 3466070627 left entries, 3466070627 final [P3-1] Table 5 took 56.9693 sec, wrote 3532874499 right entries [P3-2] Table 5 took 45.4267 sec, wrote 3532874499 left entries, 3532874499 final [P3-1] Table 6 took 61.3095 sec, wrote 3713436639 right entries [P3-2] Table 6 took 49.1649 sec, wrote 3713436639 left entries, 3713436639 final [P3-1] Table 7 took 70.3762 sec, wrote 4294528449 right entries [P3-2] Table 7 took 56.8524 sec, wrote 4294528449 left entries, 4294528449 final Phase 3 took 660.331 sec, wrote 21876183253 entries to final plot [P4] Starting to write C1 and C3 tables [P4] Finished writing C1 and C3 tables [P4] Writing C2 table [P4] Finished writing C2 table Phase 4 took 104.987 sec, final plot size is 108829650727 bytes Total plot creation time was 2488.86 sec

Here is a plot with 64 threads instead of 32, a bit faster in some places but ended slightly longer then the 32 thread version Number of Threads: 64 Number of Buckets: 2^7 (128) Pool Public Key: Farmer Public Key: Working Directory: /media/chia/300gbx10/ Working Directory 2: /media/chia/ramdisk/ Plot Name: [P1] Table 1 took 14.4823 sec [P1] Table 2 took 128.733 sec, found 4294885159 matches [P1] Table 3 took 153.65 sec, found 4294888707 matches [P1] Table 4 took 187.556 sec, found 4294775742 matches [P1] Table 5 took 185.006 sec, found 4294637853 matches [P1] Table 6 took 180.037 sec, found 4294300654 matches [P1] Table 7 took 140.701 sec, found 4293526906 matches Phase 1 took 990.183 sec [P2] max_table_size = 4294967296 [P2] Table 7 scan took 10.4494 sec [P2] Table 7 rewrite took 45.1316 sec, dropped 0 entries (0 %) [P2] Table 6 scan took 33.978 sec [P2] Table 6 rewrite took 49.6236 sec, dropped 581386783 entries (13.5386 %) [P2] Table 5 scan took 29.8368 sec [P2] Table 5 rewrite took 48.2361 sec, dropped 762058741 entries (17.7444 %) [P2] Table 4 scan took 31.1902 sec [P2] Table 4 rewrite took 47.874 sec, dropped 828911528 entries (19.3005 %) [P2] Table 3 scan took 29.7129 sec [P2] Table 3 rewrite took 47.3252 sec, dropped 855143082 entries (19.9107 %) [P2] Table 2 scan took 40.4225 sec [P2] Table 2 rewrite took 47.8694 sec, dropped 865569814 entries (20.1535 %) Phase 2 took 482.865 sec Wrote plot header with 268 bytes [P3-1] Table 2 took 68.7052 sec, wrote 3429315345 right entries [P3-2] Table 2 took 48.2843 sec, wrote 3429315345 left entries, 3429315345 final [P3-1] Table 3 took 57.744 sec, wrote 3439745625 right entries [P3-2] Table 3 took 48.4834 sec, wrote 3439745625 left entries, 3439745625 final [P3-1] Table 4 took 56.8101 sec, wrote 3465864214 right entries [P3-2] Table 4 took 45.8199 sec, wrote 3465864214 left entries, 3465864214 final [P3-1] Table 5 took 63.5867 sec, wrote 3532579112 right entries [P3-2] Table 5 took 53.4874 sec, wrote 3532579112 left entries, 3532579112 final [P3-1] Table 6 took 69.4337 sec, wrote 3712913871 right entries [P3-2] Table 6 took 54.0949 sec, wrote 3712913871 left entries, 3712913871 final [P3-1] Table 7 took 72.2751 sec, wrote 4293526906 right entries [P3-2] Table 7 took 61.1901 sec, wrote 4293526906 left entries, 4293526906 final Phase 3 took 706.632 sec, wrote 21873945073 entries to final plot [P4] Starting to write C1 and C3 tables [P4] Finished writing C1 and C3 tables [P4] Writing C2 table [P4] Finished writing C2 table Phase 4 took 107.439 sec, final plot size is 108816105264 bytes Total plot creation time was 2287.21 sec Next up buckets.

Ok, here is with the drives juggled around to get the full bandwidth (1.5gb/s). Turned out to be harder then a thought, the onboard intel chepset sas controller seems to be limited to 1gb/s as well. So had to break the drives up between the jbod and the onboard. 38 mins Interestingly, the writes to the drives do not seem to be a bottleneck. The reads on the other hand are a noticeable bottleneck but they only last a few mins in the process. Number of Threads: 32 Number of Buckets: 2^7 (128) Pool Public Key: Farmer Public Key: Working Directory: /media/chia/300gbx10/ Working Directory 2: /media/chia/ramdisk/ Plot Name: [P1] Table 1 took 14.5279 sec [P1] Table 2 took 130.336 sec, found 4294943972 matches [P1] Table 3 took 152.122 sec, found 4294882415 matches [P1] Table 4 took 185.527 sec, found 4294795945 matches [P1] Table 5 took 180.186 sec, found 4294543727 matches [P1] Table 6 took 177.022 sec, found 4294156500 matches [P1] Table 7 took 136.853 sec, found 4293318270 matches Phase 1 took 976.595 sec [P2] max_table_size = 4294967296 [P2] Table 7 scan took 9.91041 sec [P2] Table 7 rewrite took 43.7098 sec, dropped 0 entries (0 %) [P2] Table 6 scan took 32.0883 sec [P2] Table 6 rewrite took 52.855 sec, dropped 581341377 entries (13.538 %) [P2] Table 5 scan took 30.9779 sec [P2] Table 5 rewrite took 50.1201 sec, dropped 762035006 entries (17.7443 %) [P2] Table 4 scan took 31.7755 sec [P2] Table 4 rewrite took 49.5515 sec, dropped 828925070 entries (19.3007 %) [P2] Table 3 scan took 30.7593 sec [P2] Table 3 rewrite took 49.5533 sec, dropped 855100275 entries (19.9097 %) [P2] Table 2 scan took 39.4037 sec [P2] Table 2 rewrite took 49.8204 sec, dropped 865576918 entries (20.1534 %) Phase 2 took 492.669 sec Wrote plot header with 268 bytes [P3-1] Table 2 took 63.8108 sec, wrote 3429367054 right entries [P3-2] Table 2 took 47.5852 sec, wrote 3429367054 left entries, 3429367054 final [P3-1] Table 3 took 57.6521 sec, wrote 3439782140 right entries [P3-2] Table 3 took 45.0558 sec, wrote 3439782140 left entries, 3439782140 final [P3-1] Table 4 took 58.735 sec, wrote 3465870875 right entries [P3-2] Table 4 took 47.2709 sec, wrote 3465870875 left entries, 3465870875 final [P3-1] Table 5 took 57.7979 sec, wrote 3532508721 right entries [P3-2] Table 5 took 49.3429 sec, wrote 3532508721 left entries, 3532508721 final [P3-1] Table 6 took 67.6292 sec, wrote 3712815123 right entries [P3-2] Table 6 took 52.2177 sec, wrote 3712815123 left entries, 3712815123 final [P3-1] Table 7 took 70.2158 sec, wrote 4293318270 right entries [P3-2] Table 7 took 61.5818 sec, wrote 4293318270 left entries, 4293318270 final Phase 3 took 684.917 sec, wrote 21873662183 entries to final plot [P4] Starting to write C1 and C3 tables [P4] Finished writing C1 and C3 tables [P4] Writing C2 table [P4] Finished writing C2 table Phase 4 took 106.816 sec, final plot size is 108814036734 bytes Total plot creation time was 2261.09 sec Using SSD's could cut another min or 2 off the time. Gonna mess around with buckets and threads now to see the effects.

LOL, it is the future, well until the cuda version is released. I already have plots down to under 40 mins, using cheap sas HDD's as temp 1 no less. Doing some testing now to see if I can get it lower. I also ordered some more memory so I can plot entirely in ram As it is, it doesn't eat SSD's nearly as bad, it is faster, simpler, easier and lowers the barrier for entry by not requiring lots of parallel plots/drives. I am 100% on board. Just hope it can get a GUI setup like this docker, I really miss that.

It is the future for sure, way simpler since you don't need a ton of parrell plots and worry about stagger etc. You just need a lot of ram and a reasonable speed drive / raid array and you can max out your system. It also doesn't burn SSD's for no reason. I am curious how many writes it does to an ssd if using it as temp 1 actually. I am guessing only a few hundred gb based on drive activity I am seeing. Cuda mining will speed it up even faster, I could see 10 min plots being possible. Someone will get a bunch of quaros where they can share vram and get the 110gb it needs and do the intensive part of the plotting in vram with the rest in a ramdisk, just you wait.

Ok, finished the ram/swap test with the SSD. Still bottlenecked at a few points with the SSD speed but it only lasted a few seconds each time. Also confirmed that with 224gb of ram, it only wrote 53gb to the SSD. Total time was 39mins, basically the same as the 10x 10k drives with the SAS1 bottleneck. Gonna re-arrange some things and move those drives out of the jbod so they have full bandwidth to see what the performance is next. Overall I think that if I did it 100% in ram I would cut a few minutes off the time. Working Directory: /media/chia/ramdisk/ Working Directory 2: /media/chia/ramdisk/ Plot Name: plot-k32-2021-06-11-16-30-34e8fe3838d4592d253464114514f4824088d34305ffb97a4305850cd6fef807 [P1] Table 1 took 15.3652 sec [P1] Table 2 took 130.496 sec, found 4294912808 matches [P1] Table 3 took 149.661 sec, found 4294990999 matches [P1] Table 4 took 185 sec, found 4294910364 matches [P1] Table 5 took 180.235 sec, found 4294770273 matches [P1] Table 6 took 176.25 sec, found 4294453532 matches [P1] Table 7 took 133.391 sec, found 4293991461 matches Phase 1 took 970.415 sec [P2] max_table_size = 4294990999 [P2] Table 7 scan took 9.47834 sec [P2] Table 7 rewrite took 54.3766 sec, dropped 0 entries (0 %) [P2] Table 6 scan took 31.9529 sec [P2] Table 6 rewrite took 50.5049 sec, dropped 581346092 entries (13.5371 %) [P2] Table 5 scan took 30.9766 sec [P2] Table 5 rewrite took 56.566 sec, dropped 762041241 entries (17.7435 %) [P2] Table 4 scan took 29.5163 sec [P2] Table 4 rewrite took 68.378 sec, dropped 828891100 entries (19.2994 %) [P2] Table 3 scan took 29.5927 sec [P2] Table 3 rewrite took 67.0983 sec, dropped 855094826 entries (19.9091 %) [P2] Table 2 scan took 67.6979 sec [P2] Table 2 rewrite took 98.9228 sec, dropped 865543140 entries (20.1528 %) Phase 2 took 617.233 sec Wrote plot header with 268 bytes [P3-1] Table 2 took 86.8226 sec, wrote 3429369668 right entries [P3-2] Table 2 took 32.75 sec, wrote 3429369668 left entries, 3429369668 final [P3-1] Table 3 took 59.3424 sec, wrote 3439896173 right entries [P3-2] Table 3 took 37.1951 sec, wrote 3439896173 left entries, 3439896173 final [P3-1] Table 4 took 59.2572 sec, wrote 3466019264 right entries [P3-2] Table 4 took 35.8962 sec, wrote 3466019264 left entries, 3466019264 final [P3-1] Table 5 took 61.5009 sec, wrote 3532729032 right entries [P3-2] Table 5 took 35.9014 sec, wrote 3532729032 left entries, 3532729032 final [P3-1] Table 6 took 59.1766 sec, wrote 3713107440 right entries [P3-2] Table 6 took 37.7628 sec, wrote 3713107440 left entries, 3713107440 final [P3-1] Table 7 took 134.387 sec, wrote 4293991461 right entries [P3-2] Table 7 took 43.4205 sec, wrote 4293991461 left entries, 4293991461 final Phase 3 took 690.245 sec, wrote 21875113038 entries to final plot [P4] Starting to write C1 and C3 tables [P4] Finished writing C1 and C3 tables [P4] Writing C2 table [P4] Finished writing C2 table Phase 4 took 79.61 sec, final plot size is 108822915035 bytes Total plot creation time was 2357.6 sec

An explosion in network space, we will find out how big the network will stabilize at real quick lol.

After some trial and error I figured out how to get a ramdrive and swap file to work together. For the first test I just used a 10k sas drive as the swap file. The server has 224gb of ram, anything over that gets pushed to the swap drive. The results are....interesting. Naturally the single drive is slow to write the swap info out but that only causes minor slowdowns at a few points. The real issue comes when it has to read back from the drive, that really slows things down a lot and takes a lot longer (lot of random accsess that was around 30mb/s). The good news is it looks like it only writes around ~50gb to the swap drive with this much ram, I can tolerate that on an SSD. I think I will give the same run a try with an enterprise SSD as the swap file and see if it fairs any better. Although I kinda doubt it, looks like madmax did a good job optimizing the temp1 vs temp2 folders. Does leave me thinking I should just grab some more memory as doing it all in memory is within reach and would be the fastest and simplest option of all. You will note how some stages went much faster and others took much longer. The stages that did not have to read from the HDD went faster but the ones that needed it went MUCH slower. Net result was 62 mins, slower then using the raid HDD's for temp1. Working Directory: /media/chia/ramdisk/ Working Directory 2: /media/chia/ramdisk/ Plot Name: [P1] Table 1 took 15.2192 sec [P1] Table 2 took 130.282 sec, found 4294930133 matches [P1] Table 3 took 150.935 sec, found 4294852263 matches [P1] Table 4 took 183.736 sec, found 4294796489 matches [P1] Table 5 took 180.497 sec, found 4294754453 matches [P1] Table 6 took 177.737 sec, found 4294532726 matches [P1] Table 7 took 136.991 sec, found 4294102621 matches Phase 1 took 975.415 sec [P2] max_table_size = 4294967296 [P2] Table 7 scan took 9.36441 sec [P2] Table 7 rewrite took 100.805 sec, dropped 0 entries (0 %) [P2] Table 6 scan took 32.2058 sec [P2] Table 6 rewrite took 48.0625 sec, dropped 581314467 entries (13.5362 %) [P2] Table 5 scan took 30.2798 sec [P2] Table 5 rewrite took 70.9984 sec, dropped 762006945 entries (17.7427 %) [P2] Table 4 scan took 30.2274 sec [P2] Table 4 rewrite took 111.403 sec, dropped 828856065 entries (19.2991 %) [P2] Table 3 scan took 31.7391 sec [P2] Table 3 rewrite took 101.573 sec, dropped 855088805 entries (19.9096 %) [P2] Table 2 scan took 336.482 sec [P2] Table 2 rewrite took 173.266 sec, dropped 865601272 entries (20.154 %) Phase 2 took 1099.08 sec Wrote plot header with 268 bytes [P3-1] Table 2 took 439.708 sec, wrote 3429328861 right entries [P3-2] Table 2 took 33.2532 sec, wrote 3429328861 left entries, 3429328861 final [P3-1] Table 3 took 61.3089 sec, wrote 3439763458 right entries [P3-2] Table 3 took 34.8653 sec, wrote 3439763458 left entries, 3439763458 final [P3-1] Table 4 took 62.4652 sec, wrote 3465940424 right entries [P3-2] Table 4 took 37.4194 sec, wrote 3465940424 left entries, 3465940424 final [P3-1] Table 5 took 61.2894 sec, wrote 3532747508 right entries [P3-2] Table 5 took 36.3129 sec, wrote 3532747508 left entries, 3532747508 final [P3-1] Table 6 took 65.1089 sec, wrote 3713218259 right entries [P3-2] Table 6 took 37.4954 sec, wrote 3713218259 left entries, 3713218259 final [P3-1] Table 7 took 657.524 sec, wrote 4294102621 right entries [P3-2] Table 7 took 43.6903 sec, wrote 4294102621 left entries, 4294102621 final Phase 3 took 1576.8 sec, wrote 21875101131 entries to final plot [P4] Starting to write C1 and C3 tables [P4] Finished writing C1 and C3 tables [P4] Writing C2 table [P4] Finished writing C2 table Phase 4 took 80.2494 sec, final plot size is 108823343581 bytes Total plot creation time was 3731.63 sec

Finished the second test with the raid, dropped the time to 40 mins but I was doing some other stuff that might of effected it some. Gonna try setting up a swapfile and plotting "entirely" in memory and just letting the swapfile hold the overflow. It has been reported that you can plot entirely in memory with a ~256gb ramdrive. The mobo can support up to 384gb of cheap ram before you have to get the high cap lrdimms. Even without that though, I should be able to do ~36 plots a day like this if they could be staggered to start the next while it is coping the last one to storage. Better then parallel plotting on individual drives and a lot less wear and tear / drives needed.

Number of Threads: 32 Number of Buckets: 2^7 (128) Pool Public Key: Farmer Public Key: Working Directory: /media/chia/300gb-1/ Working Directory 2: /media/chia/ramdisk/ Plot Name: [P1] Table 1 took 14.5046 sec [P1] Table 2 took 133.808 sec, found 4295060384 matches [P1] Table 3 took 157.282 sec, found 4295086275 matches [P1] Table 4 took 192.85 sec, found 4295149514 matches [P1] Table 5 took 190.693 sec, found 4295061899 matches [P1] Table 6 took 182.84 sec, found 4294980729 matches [P1] Table 7 took 141.748 sec, found 4295035658 matches Phase 1 took 1013.75 sec [P2] max_table_size = 4295149514 [P2] Table 7 scan took 10.2265 sec [P2] Table 7 rewrite took 44.4503 sec, dropped 0 entries (0 %) [P2] Table 6 scan took 33.606 sec [P2] Table 6 rewrite took 50.9536 sec, dropped 581245485 entries (13.5331 %) [P2] Table 5 scan took 32.5058 sec [P2] Table 5 rewrite took 227.18 sec, dropped 762067859 entries (17.7429 %) [P2] Table 4 scan took 32.0901 sec [P2] Table 4 rewrite took 208.52 sec, dropped 828989235 entries (19.3006 %) [P2] Table 3 scan took 31.3222 sec [P2] Table 3 rewrite took 205.521 sec, dropped 855131107 entries (19.9095 %) [P2] Table 2 scan took 346.265 sec [P2] Table 2 rewrite took 52.2521 sec, dropped 865637822 entries (20.1543 %) Phase 2 took 1299.26 sec Wrote plot header with 268 bytes [P3-1] Table 2 took 313.3 sec, wrote 3429422562 right entries [P3-2] Table 2 took 124.027 sec, wrote 3429422562 left entries, 3429422562 final [P3-1] Table 3 took 62.3612 sec, wrote 3439955168 right entries [P3-2] Table 3 took 80.7924 sec, wrote 3439955168 left entries, 3439955168 final [P3-1] Table 4 took 140.171 sec, wrote 3466160279 right entries [P3-2] Table 4 took 93.836 sec, wrote 3466160279 left entries, 3466160279 final [P3-1] Table 5 took 286.112 sec, wrote 3532994040 right entries [P3-2] Table 5 took 135.383 sec, wrote 3532994040 left entries, 3532994040 final [P3-1] Table 6 took 273.757 sec, wrote 3713735244 right entries [P3-2] Table 6 took 71.7316 sec, wrote 3713735244 left entries, 3713735244 final [P3-1] Table 7 took 70.6805 sec, wrote 4295035658 right entries [P3-2] Table 7 took 126.446 sec, wrote 4294967296 left entries, 4294967296 final Phase 3 took 1786.17 sec, wrote 21877234589 entries to final plot [P4] Starting to write C1 and C3 tables [P4] Finished writing C1 and C3 tables [P4] Writing C2 table [P4] Finished writing C2 table Phase 4 took 228.939 sec, final plot size is 108835866333 bytes Total plot creation time was 4328.22 sec Dropping this here more for my own reference then anything. This is madmax using a ramdisk for temp2 and a single 10k 300gb drive for temp 1. Just started another round except I made a 10x 300gb 10k drive raid0 array for temp 1 this time around (bottlenecked to 1gb/s due to the sas1 backplane). Gonna see how it keeps up as I was HDD bottle necked for a significant part of the time last time.

Could not get the docker version of madmax to use more then 50% of the cores (1 CPU) so installed the full program on the clean ubuntu install. I setup a 180gb ramdisk to see exactly how much room it uses and started it up. It is indeed using 100% of the cpu, the HDD access so far also appear to be sequential so raiding the drives together should get some impressive bandwidth for that as well. First test finished in 72 mins and was disk bottlenecked most of the time. Raiding some disks together should remove that bottleneck. Max memory usage was 126gb total system ram and max temp 1 usage was 180GB. I will try it again later with a raid setup to see what the numbers are.

That is really interesting, I somehow killed my install so having to reinstall this morning and plan on giving it a go later myself with a ramdrive for the 2nd temp folder and 10k HDD for the 1st temp and tweak from there. Considering grabbing some more ram and running the whole thing in ram to completely eliminate the drive wear and max speed. With DDR3 prices I can get enough ram for the price of some good NVME drives and never worry about killing it + faster speed. Plus unraid really seems to like more ram, it keeps a ton of stuff cached greatly reducing the need to spin up drives.

Yep, I was thinking the same thing. If it is already down to 24 mins in the first days after this release I can see it getting down to ~5-10 mins pretty easily with GPU plotting. at that point we will become drive speed limited again. Someone will use a massive ram drive and do everything in memory. Heck my mobo can technically support 384GB of cheap DDR3 rdimms, I could plot the whole thing in ram if I wanted and it is something I am considering actually. I just cleared all my old plots off the system and going to give this new plotter a try today. If it could be implemented with plotman and then this docker it would be magical. I am not sure I could give up this nice GUI lol. Course I will be moving to hpool soon anyways and this docker is not compatible anyways I suppose.

I just ran my first "full" test and was able to plot 6TB in 48 hours using nothing but old HDD's. I do get what you are saying though, after I finish coping these plots off I plan to get that plotter a test myself. Heck if it only writes 25% of the writes to the SSD, I might even consider using some of my SSD's for it and a ramdrive for the rest.

It has been 48 hours since I started plotman on all the drives. It is coping the last plots now to the farm drive and looks like in 2 days I manged to basically fill up a 6tb drive. A few more hours and it will have it completely full. Now that is including the spin up time for the parallel plots (takes 6-8 hours for them all to get going full speed) and I found some optimizations I could do as well. Basically this one system using nothing both old HDD's could easily plot over 3TB a day. I am not complaining about that at all, at that rate it will only take me 2 weeks to fill up my old drives. Now once these last few plots finish coping I plan to get this new plotter a try and see what results I get from ramdisk plotting. With a very similar setup the maker of that multi-thread plotter said he was doing a plot every 45 mins, which would work out to basically the same ~32 plots a day and a lot less wear on the drives. He also said he plans to get GPU plotting working next which will be even faster.

Figure I will toss this here as it looks really promising. Not sure if it could be added to this docker easily or not but this is the future of plotting IMHO.

Ok, this looks REALLY interesting for guys like you and me with lots of ram and cores at our disposal:

Interesting error, wounder what the cause is?