I have been using UNRAID and TrueNAS both on diffrent machines and through SMB. I find for UNRAID is so much slower access time when opening directories/files it takes much longer to list files compared to my trueNAS computer. Any ideas if this is normal behaviour with UNRAID's performance? In general this is most noticeable on directories with 1000+ files in them, trueNAS handles it very well while unraid is just sluggish in comparision.

It will be noticeably slower with directories with many files, or when handling many small files, that's because of FUSE overheard when using user shares, you can get around that by using exclusive shares if possible with your use case, those bypass fuse.

1 hour ago, JorgeB said:

It will be noticeably slower with directories with many files, or when handling many small files, that's because of FUSE overheard when using user shares, you can get around that by using exclusive shares if possible with your use case, those bypass fuse.

Is this only a setting you can set if you have a cache pool? I only have an existing array with no set cache

28 minutes ago, Hellomynameisleo said:

Is this only a setting you can set if you have a cache pool?

Correct, it can only be used for shares that live in a single pool, with the array you can enable disks shares and use those, but each disk share as the name implies will links to a specific disk, it also bypasses FUSE, but if a shares spans multiple array disks it won't show all the data when using them.

2 hours ago, JorgeB said:

Correct, it can only be used for shares that live in a single pool, with the array you can enable disks shares and use those, but each disk share as the name implies will links to a specific disk, it also bypasses FUSE, but if a shares spans multiple array disks it won't show all the data when using them.

is disk shares really the only way for this issue?

its going to be even harder and pain to manage 5 seperate disks and its one of the many reason I came to use unraid so I wouldn't need to do that.

 

 

The only only to improve performance is to either use disk shares, which will be difficult to manage unless you can limit that share to a single disk, or use a dedicated pool for that share.

4 hours ago, JorgeB said:

The only only to improve performance is to either use disk shares, which will be difficult to manage unless you can limit that share to a single disk, or use a dedicated pool for that share.

I wanted the array without dedicating storage to a pool, I went for unraid because I didn't need to go for a pool and have good amount of usable storage unlike something like trueNAS. The array is starting to become unusable as I add more stuff and becoming hard to move 1000s of files in the array around since it takes so long.

 

though I've gone to use krusader on unraid instead to do any file/folder modifications instead of using my windows pc over smb and its really that much faster.

4 minutes ago, Hellomynameisleo said:

I wanted the array without dedicating storage to a pool, I went for unraid because I didn't need to go for a pool and have good amount of usable storage unlike something like trueNAS. The array is starting to become unusable as I add more stuff and becoming hard to move 1000s of files in the array around since it takes so long.

 

though I've gone to use krusader on unraid instead to do any file/folder modifications instead of using my windows pc over smb and its really that much faster.

You might get better results using the Dynamix File Manager plugin.

6 minutes ago, itimpi said:

You might get better results using the Dynamix File Manager plugin.

I have used it but find it less ease of use for drag drop moving and browsing which krusader does better similar to a windows file explorer experience, though I am using it a temperary measure.

Would it be possible to instead present my whole UNRAID array using iSCSI instead of SMB to my windows pc or does it only work on single disks?