January 19, 20233 yr Dataflow: End User PC with downloaded media (1TB Samsung 980 Pro M.2 NVMe) > (10gbps NIC w CAT6) > (10gbps switch w 40gbps backbone) > Unraid server (10gbps NIC) > Unraid server (cache drive - 1TB Samsung 980 Pro M.2 NVMe **OR** 1TB SSD with SATA) Where would the bottle neck be in this scenario? I am contemplating on setting up a new server as my server parts are approx 12 years old and want to focus on my transfer rates. I hate waiting for transfers. My current setup is 5x 6TB HGST drives (one is parity) + no cache drive right now as I sometimes download 1TB+ packs. Trying to determine what the new config should look like. I do not have the 10Gig switch yet, I will buy when I fully understand my requirements and limitations with new Unraid config Edited January 19, 20233 yr by sannitig
January 19, 20233 yr Community Expert The bottleneck will be your hgst drives. This is because currently (I've filed a feature request, support it!) UNRAID has only a "Write" cache. Your LAN speed will only be used for fast writing new files. Once Mover has moved them to the safe array, read speed will be limited to drive speed of the array. Maybe a little bit of RAM cache will kick in if you read the file a 2nd time but that is unlikely. I asked for a seperate "Read" cache SSD/NVMe which would speed up reading time for many most used files (but of course, only after the first (even a bit slower) read. But for a long time. The more a file is asked for, the longer it will stay on that cache drive). Anyway, for now reading is the biggest problems as long as LAN speeds are higher as drive speeds. See and make a "#meetoo" hook if you like to see it too. Edited January 19, 20233 yr by MAM59
January 19, 20233 yr Author Interesting RFE. I use my server as mostly storage. Plex, picture storage etc. I never really transfer multiple or large files off of it but I can see your point if you reversed my data flow! I will support your cause but I don't think it should use the same cache drive. This drive should be separate Back to my question about bottlenecks about data flow TO the server though. I'm guessing the bottle neck would be the write speed of the cache drive right? SSD w SATA being slower than the NVMe. That being said could you set up two SSD SATA cache drives with RAID0 to double the write speed? I understand it would be taking up an extra SATA port but lets assume we have many
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.