Spectrum Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 Of course - 20Gb won't go down a 1Gb network ... but, perhaps, it indicates that my machines could make good use of faster interfaces? As long as you are transferring into and out of memory, the minute you start actually writing to a disk its I/O speed will become the bottleneck 10Gb hardware is out there and I've heard of people using Infiniband for IP networks but both are pretty expensive options currently. These results also lead me to believe that the 50MB/sec maximum I see on writes to the cache drive are being constrained by the disk drive. Yep, there is some overhead created by CIFS or NFS, but odds are your drive speed is the limiter. There's a post floating around somewhere where someone tested an SSD as cache drive and compared it to other rotational media. Might want to track that down if you are interested in trying to boost your transfer speeds to the cache drive. IIRC they got in the 70MB/s transfer range, and others have gotten close to that with rotational drives. Don't quote me on that though, I may be wrong! from my laptop running w7 enterprise 64 bit ------------------------------------------------------------ Server listening on TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 4] local 192.168.1.130 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 56228 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.0- 1.0 sec 3115 KBytes 25516 Kbits/sec [ 4] 1.0- 2.0 sec 3416 KBytes 27985 Kbits/sec [ 4] 2.0- 3.0 sec 3453 KBytes 28288 Kbits/sec [ 4] 3.0- 4.0 sec 3456 KBytes 28312 Kbits/sec [ 4] 4.0- 5.0 sec 3056 KBytes 25039 Kbits/sec [ 4] 5.0- 6.0 sec 3216 KBytes 26342 Kbits/sec [ 4] 6.0- 7.0 sec 2552 KBytes 20903 Kbits/sec [ 4] 7.0- 8.0 sec 3312 KBytes 27134 Kbits/sec [ 4] 8.0- 9.0 sec 3224 KBytes 26412 Kbits/sec [ 4] 9.0-10.0 sec 3473 KBytes 28452 Kbits/sec [ 4] 0.0-10.1 sec 32512 KBytes 26308 Kbits/sec I smell wifi Quote Link to comment
sacretagent Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 yeah laptop over wifi sorry forgot to mention Quote Link to comment
unRaidMe Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Thanks for posting this! I've been wondering how I could test my network speed because data transfers seem to be slow. I haven't set up a parity drive yet and writing seems to go at about 19MB/s and I've read from the unRaid at about 39MB/s. When I run iperf, I get 935Mb/s, which is over 110MB/s: iperf-2.0.5 peterchung$ iperf -c 192.168.1.3 -P 1 -i 1 -p 5001 -f k -t 10 -T 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 192.168.1.3, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 65.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 192.168.1.2 port 55588 connected with 192.168.1.3 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0- 1.0 sec 114560 KBytes 938476 Kbits/sec [ 3] 1.0- 2.0 sec 114688 KBytes 939524 Kbits/sec [ 3] 2.0- 3.0 sec 114560 KBytes 938476 Kbits/sec [ 3] 3.0- 4.0 sec 114688 KBytes 939524 Kbits/sec [ 3] 4.0- 5.0 sec 114688 KBytes 939524 Kbits/sec [ 3] 5.0- 6.0 sec 113536 KBytes 930087 Kbits/sec [ 3] 6.0- 7.0 sec 112384 KBytes 920650 Kbits/sec [ 3] 7.0- 8.0 sec 113792 KBytes 932184 Kbits/sec [ 3] 8.0- 9.0 sec 114688 KBytes 939524 Kbits/sec [ 3] 9.0-10.0 sec 114560 KBytes 938476 Kbits/sec [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1142400 KBytes 935723 Kbits/sec When I was preclearing my drives, they were going between 70-110MB/s depending on the progress. Any ideas as to what I can do to improve performance? I am wanting to use unRaid mainly to backup my massive video editing projects so performance is a big priority. My main computer is a Mac Pro if that factors into anything. Thanks! Quote Link to comment
mbryanr Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Nice results. Obviously not a bandwidth issue. Curious - what was the source OS? You should be getting >19MB/s without parity. That is a normal value with parity (I get ~17-29MB/s, dependent on other network activity) Note: I initially read your post and missed the "without" part and was about to suggest a cache drive. Quote Link to comment
unRaidMe Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 I'm running unRAID Version 4.7. I've got 3 Hitachi 5K3000 2TB drives but only 2 assigned as data drives and the third idle and ready to be used as parity once the data is populated. My Mac Pro is running OSX 10.6.7 My WinXP laptop only has 100Mbps ethernet so that only goes at 83.6Mb/s and only about 20Mb/s on wireless Quote Link to comment
unRaidMe Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 [sOLVED] I had to set my share as NFS and connect the share as NFS. Now it's writing at around 50MB/s and reading at around 74MB/s... much faster! While I'm glad I am getting my unRaid up to speed, so to speak, I am having to read a lot to find out that there are different connection types: NFS, AFP, SMB, etc... I don't know what any of it means and just follow what works for others. I'm glad others have posted their solutions, though! Just for reference, to set up your shares for NFS: Go to the unRaid web interface and go to Shares: In the shares you want to access via NFS, in each "Export (NFS):" input box, type: "*(rw,insecure)" then click "Apply" On your Mac, open "Disk Utility" and go to "File->NFS Mounts..." Click the plus sign and under "Remote NFS URL:" type in "nfs://IPaddress/mnt/user/ShareName" and under "Mount location:" type "/Volumes/ShareName" making sure that you type the same ShareName for each input. For some reason, it doesn't like me putting in "tower" and only finds the NFS with the IP address. I know it will create problems when I restart my switch and router and it assignes a different IP to the unRaid Any solutions for this? Click Verify and you should get confirmation that your Mac can connect to the NFS In Finder, click "Go->Connect to Server..." and type in "nfs://IPaddress/mnt/user/ShareName" exactly as you did in Disk Utility And voila! You are now connected via NFS and should experience faster data transfers! Also, for my own reference, it looks like AFP might be better but you have to wait for version 5 of unRaid as it is currently in beta right now and not recommended for production use (unRaid 5beta, that is, not AFP, to clear up any confusion) Hope my headaches are helping others! Quote Link to comment
unRaidMe Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 If you don't want to mess with setting up your shares as NFS, there is a simpler "hack" I came across: just enable "Internet Sharing." You can even turn off your AirPort after setting up Internet Sharing through your AirPort. I was getting over 40MB/s both reading and writing just by enabling "Internet Sharing" and connecting to smb://tower/ShareName Quote Link to comment
Spectrum Posted April 22, 2011 Author Share Posted April 22, 2011 If you don't want to mess with setting up your shares as NFS, there is a simpler "hack" I came across: just enable "Internet Sharing." You can even turn off your AirPort after setting up Internet Sharing through your AirPort. I was getting over 40MB/s both reading and writing just by enabling "Internet Sharing" and connecting to smb://tower/ShareName Interesting. Sounds like protocol overhead or implementation to me. I just made a test copy of of my array and I'm getting 60MB/s + sustained transfer writing to an SSD on my Win7 workstation. I tried copying from a WD green drive and a 7200 RPM drive and got about the same results. OSX may be using the SMB protocol rather than the CIFS protocol. You could be losing some transfer speed to the overhead in the protocol. That kind of makes sense because you are getting much faster reads/writes using NFS. NFS is a Unix derived file system and OSX does indeed play nice with it. That's the route I would go sense you are running a Mac You are correct that AFP may be a good solution for you if when V5 stabilizes and gets out of beta. Here are some links if you want to read up on file systems: SMB/CIFS NFS AFP A bunch more that you've never heard of Glad the iperf package helped you out Quote Link to comment
unRaidMe Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Thanks! I'm glad you shared about iperf! Do you know if there's anything I can do about the hostname not resolving? Would it be better to hard code a static IP instead of having the unRaid get it dynamically assigned through DHCP? Quote Link to comment
Spectrum Posted April 22, 2011 Author Share Posted April 22, 2011 Not sure what it takes for OSX to resolve names via NETBIOS, it's doable but I have no idea where to even begin but someone else here may be able to point you down the right track. In the mean time running it with a static IP or setting up a DHCP reservation on the DHCP server would be advisable. Then you could use the host file to map the name to the IP address. The instructions for the host file are in this article. Should be /etc/hosts on a mac... Quote Link to comment
unRaidMe Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Strangely, the hostname resolves when connecting to SMB but not NFS. Quote Link to comment
unRaidMe Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 I reserved the IP Address on my DHCP server/router and then modified the hosts file on my mac and I can now resolve the hostname when accessing NFS. Thanks! Quote Link to comment
Rembro Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [344] local 192.168.0.247 port 14043 connected with 192.168.0.149 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [344] 0.0- 1.0 sec 53480 KBytes 53480 KBytes/sec [344] 1.0- 2.0 sec 56656 KBytes 56656 KBytes/sec [344] 2.0- 3.0 sec 56000 KBytes 56000 KBytes/sec [344] 3.0- 4.0 sec 56320 KBytes 56320 KBytes/sec [344] 4.0- 5.0 sec 55720 KBytes 55720 KBytes/sec [344] 5.0- 6.0 sec 56712 KBytes 56712 KBytes/sec [344] 6.0- 7.0 sec 56288 KBytes 56288 KBytes/sec [344] 7.0- 8.0 sec 56280 KBytes 56280 KBytes/sec [344] 8.0- 9.0 sec 56752 KBytes 56752 KBytes/sec [344] 9.0-10.0 sec 57424 KBytes 57424 KBytes/sec [344] 0.0-10.0 sec 561640 KBytes 56079 KBytes/sec Done. Windows 7 64bit machine G-Bit lan with about 15mtr Cat5e to Gbit router,, , The Unraid machine is connected directly to this router with a 2 mtr Cat5e patchcable. I have a feeling that this could be better, reallife writing to the unraid server gives 18 tot 22Mb/sec , reading 38 tot 42Mb/sec a few weeks ago i connected 2 single disks windows 7 machines instead of the Unraid machine and got a 70000 to 90000Kbytes/sec troughput Is this because of the difference in protocols and overhead, or the parity drive slowing the speeds down? Quote Link to comment
Joe L. Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Is this because of the difference in protocols and overhead, or the parity drive slowing the speeds down? Not the parity drive, but the process of calculating parity. It is slowed by the slower rotational speed of EITHER/BOTH the data drive and the parity drive. Both the data and parity drive must first read the sector being written, then write them after waiting a full rotation of their disk platters. The rotation is what slows the process. 7200RPM disks will rotate 1/3 faster than 5400 RPM disks, and users can get close to 35MB/s. If a 5400 RPM drive is involved, your speeds are very typical. Joe L. Quote Link to comment
Spectrum Posted April 23, 2011 Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 What Joe said I wil add in that iperf is only measuring raw bandwidth. Any disk activity will slow things down. That said your numbers are very low. 55 KB/s is < 1 Mbps; based on your results I think there is definitely something wrong. I would start with the cables and/or try diff machines to try to isolate the problem. Quote Link to comment
Rembro Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Both Joe and Spectrum thnx for the tips and explanation, My main desktop is a X58 mainbord , i7 920 , 6GB DDR3 and sata 2 7200 rpm disk in combination with a onboard Gbit Nic (Realtek RTL8168C(P)/8111C(P) Family PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet NIC (NDIS 6.20) It's connected to the G-bit router with a 2mtr Cat5E patchcable to Wall-socket > 8 to 10mtr's cat5E in the wall > out of the wall in garage to the g-bit router. I will try a direct cable, without the wall-socket and try another desktop. will post results Quote Link to comment
Spectrum Posted April 24, 2011 Author Share Posted April 24, 2011 Well that's what I get for posting things with my phone! 55000 KB/s is ~430 Mb/s so that's really not so bad. Sorry if I sent you on a wild goose chase. Quote Link to comment
Rembro Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 ;D , No it's not bad,, i only noticed the big difference writing speeds with a single disk windows environment. i thought something was wrong,, but now realising that it's not so bad at all with a WD-Green as a parity drive. did the test,, Win7 pc directly to G-bit router with patchcable of 2 mtr, and UNRAID server directly with patchcable of 2mtr ,, i did noticed some improvement in write speeds, but not much. i had to pump over 3TB of data and that took ages ,but even SATA to SATA would take long, now that's done. Quote Link to comment
Ice_Black Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Where Iperf package? Quote Link to comment
tucansam Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 When downloading it says the md5: (NOT matched - download may be corrupted or download URL no longer valid.) And then won't install. Any updates to this package or another place to get it without having to compile it myself? Quote Link to comment
blautens Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I'll second that request. I scoured the Interwebs looking for that package, and even tried to compile my own, but without success. I have no issues doing it on my Ubuntu machine, but I think I would need C++ on my unRAID server and I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Does anyone have a copy of the iPerf 2.05 package for unRAID left over they would care to post? Please? Quote Link to comment
JonathanM Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I'll second that request. I scoured the Interwebs looking for that package, and even tried to compile my own, but without success. I have no issues doing it on my Ubuntu machine, but I think I would need C++ on my unRAID server and I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Does anyone have a copy of the iPerf 2.05 package for unRAID left over they would care to post? Please? Does this work for you? Quote Link to comment
icedragonslair Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Having the same problem installing this, anyone's help is appreciated Quote Link to comment
doorunrun Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I see I have the package on my flash drive here's a link to the unMENU package: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/189963/iperf-2.0.5.zip In the zip file consists of two files, iperf-2.0.5-i486-1.tgz and iperf-unmenu-package.conf If I understand the process correctly, one would extract the two files in place them in the /boot/packages folder. I think, then from unMENU you would click on the "Select iperf-2.0.5-i486-1.tgz" button. It should be seen as local and install. However, it might be a good idea to restart unMENU before trying to select it. I hope this helps! It works on my unRAID server; I'm running 5.0.4. Quote Link to comment
doorunrun Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 I tried to install the package on my V6b5a test server and ran into problems. I did notice the file iperf-unmenu-package.conf was there already in the /etc/packages folder, but iperf is not being listed in unMENU's web page. So there's more to it. But, I guess for V6 one could run a VM, etc. but that's adding too much overhead to get a believable number. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.