**click here for final step of solution http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=15845.msg149137#msg149137

 

I just did a search for AlbumArt in a folder on the unRAID server.  it found about 3200 files, but it's taken nearly 5 minutes to show me those results, another 5 minutes to resort them, and it's taken another 5 minutes to delete 32.9 MB of data!!!!

 

PLEASE tell me this is not normal.

 

If this is normal (I'm new to unRAID), I'm going to have to find another solution.  I'm ready to stab myself in the eye after waiting this long for a TRIVIAL task to get done.  33MB of data, 15 minutes; not cool.

 

How do I fix this?

syslog.txt

No this is definitely not correct nor normal. I noticed from your log that you are having a Realtek chip set for the NIC. eth0: Identified chip type is 'RTL8168C/8111C'.

 

Search for that on the board here because that chip set is nothing but problems and it is documented. Do yourself a favor and buy for $30 a decent Network Interface card. Look at the second post for a recommendation of a card http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=15753.msg146714#msg146714

 

I just installed that card and it is a difference between night and day. Also be mindful that if you do the operations from a Windows 7 machine using Windows Explorer it sucks. Just Google for "Slow Copy & Move" and you  will see the many different people that complain about how Windows is really slow when interfacing with Linux for Copying or Moving. Use TeraCopy, RSync or some other program for copying. If you go to the Console you should have blazing speed. Another way to test or narrow down the problem, use Putty or some other program that gives you a session and use the native Linux commands and you will know if it is a problem with the machine.

 

My speed increase writing to the array after switching the NIC is remarkable.

I've always used and had Intel NICS and have always been completely transparent. Which a network should be. Just works!

 

 

Okay, thanks for the feedback.  I'm very happy to know this is 'fixable'

 

I'm looking at cards at Fry's (so I can pick one up after work) and they don't have any (affordable) intel cards on their site.

 

I saw this Asus (NX1101 Series Gigabit Network Adapter), which shows this as it's feature set...

 

Support IEEE 802.1q VLAN tagging  

Transmit/Receive FIFO (32K) support

Support Wake-on-LAN (WoL) function and remote wake-up

Crossover Detection & Auto-Correction  

16KB Jumbo Frame Support

 

 

I've seen some threads on Jubmo Frams Support, and 9000 was mentioned as good, so I'll assume 16000 is also good (better?)

 

I can't find the actual chip information anywhwere, so I'm not sure if this would be compatible with unRAID.  Any way to know for sure?

 

They list Linux drivers available, so I think it will be fine, but I'm trying to avoid "sketchy" connections, so if I can't be sure, I'll pass.

 

http://www.asus.com/Networks/Accessories/NX1101/#overview

I figured I should make sure my router handles jumbo packets (for streaming HD video), but it doesn't

 

Way to go Cisco!  The E3000 turns out to be a hunk of steaming crap!  It's got VERY limited range, and seems to not have many common features, so it's up for sale now.

 

I'm thinking about the switch below, to go with the card above.  I use AT&T U-Verse, which requires you to use their wireless router anyway, and wireless N on the Cisco was a bust (20% signal one room/30' away), so I'm thinking that just replacing the E3000 with this switch will be more functional than the crappy/useless wireless N that the E3000 (sort of) provides.

 

anyone used, or can comment on this switch, specifically with regards to matching up with the card above?

 

I hate having to throw money at this problem, but I'd rather throw money at it that stab myself in the eye while waiting for the network

 

http://www.frys.com/product/6446942?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

 

Features and Benefits :

 

5*10/100/1000Base-T Gigabit Ethernet ports

LAN 1, VIP port :high performance priority port for data connections

IEEE 802.3x Flow Control for Full Duplex mode

Back Pressure for Half Duplex mode

Supports Full/Half Duplex in 10M and 100M mode

Supports Full Duplex in 1000M mode

Supports full wire speed reception and transmission

Supports Store-and-forward operation

Supports Asus Green Network feature, Link down detection and Cable length detection

Supports 1K MAC Addresses Table

Supports 832K bits Packet Buffer Memory

Supports up to 12KB Jumbo Frames

Supports Auto-detection for MDI/MD-X

 

Check the PCI NIC recommendation in this thread http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=15753.0

 

Do yourself a favor and stick with Intel it will ensure that the Linux distros will have drivers for your NIC. You will not regret it, for with Intel NICs you just install and forget about it, they just work. With the aIntel NICs you should be spending between $27 & $30. Switches are very cheap, TrendNet, DLink all  in the order of $30 to $80. With Jumbo frames it is not a panacea, but all the pieces in the network should support it with the most important pieces being the end parts, server & front end (HTPC). My Win 7 machine's NIC an Intel has only 3 MTU settings 4088, 9014 & disabled. Shoot for the 9014 and it will suffice.

As stated above get an Intel NIC

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-PWLA8391GT-1000-Network-Adapter/dp/B00030DEQE

 

If you want to try...and have to pick one up at Fry's

http://www.frys.com/product/3938428?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=14236.msg135961#msg135961

 

http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php?title=Hardware_Compatibility#Network_Controllers

Thanks all.  Sadly, I don't know where I can pick up and Intel NIC locally, so I'm not going to be able to "fix" this over the weekend

 

Oh well, I'll order an Intel NIC (or 2) and wait.

 

I looked at the recommended NIC's and mine is listed there, so I'm not sure how "trustworthy" that list is

 

"Realtek - RTL8169S, RTL8111B, RTL8111C, probably others too "

 

I'll order a new switch also.

 

I don't expect the jumbo frames to be magic, but every little bit helps, and since I have to replace parts, I suppose it's better to get the most features I can.

 

Is there any way to "test" the NIC to make sure it's "fine"?  I may buy the one I mentioned at Fry's and try it, since I could still return it if I know it won't/can't work.

The drivers for the NIC are in the Linux distribution, so I guess you will not find out until you plugged it in. Intel drivers are always included as their NICs are the defacto standard. If you have 1 free 1 lane PCI-e slot left then just look at this glowing report of this card http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=33-106-033 (230 reviews and still 5 egg ratings). Cost you $28 with free shipping and mine arrived 3 days after ordering.

 

Or if you have a PCI empty slot check this card out http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833106121 (430 Reviews & still 5 Egg rating) This was also recommended by someone else here at the forum $31 with free shipping.

You are having problems because you are running 5.0Beta <with documented problems with that driver in the new kernel>

 

4.7 unRAID has problems with the Atheros and the 8111E NIC.

 

I will confirm the Intel EXPI9301CTBLK is rock solid in unRAID, Windows (including Server) and ESX with no added drivers.

4.7 unRAID has problems with the Atheros and the 8111E NIC.

Thanks did not know that about the Atheros and 4.7 which I am running. If I did, I would have installed a new NIC longtime ago. As it turns out with the new Intel NIC my setup is now very much to my liking.

You are having problems because you are running 5.0Beta <with documented problems with that driver in the new kernel>

 

4.7 unRAID has problems with the Atheros and the 8111E NIC.

 

 

I knew there were issues with a realtek driver in the 5.12 beta, but I didn't think they applied to my NIC.  whoops

 

Regardless, I'm using 3TB drives, so 4.7 is not an option for me anyway.

 

I'm going to just order a NIC and switch later today, but wanted to ask if there is any reason to prefer PCIe over PCI for the NIC?

 

I have more PIC slots than PCIe, and may want to add another controller card to the PCIe slot someday, so I'm wondering if there's any reason not to order this (also highly recommended) PCI card instead of the highly recommended one linked to above?

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833106121

Okay, I ended up getting the recommended PCIe card (Intel EXPI9301CTBLK 10/ 100/ 1000Mbps), and a new Gigabit switch (D-Link DGS-1008G 10/100/1000Mbps) which came with no disk/drivers and seems to have been recognized and is working fine.

 

I used brand new cat6a cables also.  This is all connected to a U-Verse 100Mbps & wireless G router/modem.

 

all of the computers and my AVR is connected to my switch.  I just verified the AVR is only 100Mbps also, so it may get hooked into the modem/router now.

 

anyway, if I connect from my desktop, which is currently using wireless G to connect to the router (then to the switch) and I use Windows Explorer to move files, I get about 800KB/s to 1MB/s speeds.  It sometimes starts out much slower, and builds up to that.

 

I installed teracopy, but it gets the same speeds.

 

I added this to the default go script and rebooted

 

#!/bin/bash
echo nameserver 192.168.1.254 >/etc/resolv.conf
echo 192.168.1.150 media >>/etc/hosts

 

I have set Jumbo frames to 9000, as per the max published by Intel for this card.

 

I had tried with adding some code to change the read ahead to 2048, but that seemed unhelpful, so I removed it, and it seems to have made no difference.

 

I tried copying the same file in Explorer from a computer connected directly to the switch with Gig-e and it was better, 31MB/s.  It seems like this could be better, but maybe that's all i can expect.  It's a copy of a 16GB mkv movie going from one disk to the other in the same array.  it seems like it could go faster, but maybe the parity is the limiting factor.

 

Anyway, is there any way to force these kinds of transfers to not be affected by the computer making the request.  it seems if I ask this work to be done from a wireless connection, it goes really slow.  from a wired connection, 30X faster.

 

is this avoidable, and is there anything else I should try/do to improve speeds?

syslog-2011-10-22.txt

If you are moving files from disk to disk within the array, you are MUCH MUCH MUCH better off using a telnet session and using somethin like Midnight Commander.

 

If you Move the file with Midnight Commander (F6 key), it'll be alot faster.  it'll all be internal and the network will have nothing to do with it

The PCI NIC would have been fine and saved the PCIe slot.

The PCI NIC would have been fine and saved the PCIe slot.

 

I kinda figured, but I have no concrete plans for that slot, and I don't want any more reasons to consider if I continue to have issues, so I went with the recommended card (which installed fine), new cables, and a new Gig-e switch to connect it all (except the wifi desktop for now).

 

However, I still get slow speeds, and all kinds of hangups and 'cannot find' issues when trying to access the files on the unRAID server.  It's as if it keeps dropping off the network for some reason.  Usually, it seems that if I click on a user share in windows explorer, and let it display the contents, and try whatever had just failed/hung up; it starts working again, after this extra step.

 

I'm really getting frustrated now.  unRAID seems to be functioning 'correctly', it's just not very fast or reliable in my environment.

 

I HAVE to assume this is my issue, as no one would use this system if everyone had the access issues I have.

 

I'm sure I'm doing something wrong, but I'm out of ideas on what to do/try next/now?

 

I posted my syslog a few posts back, in case anyone has any ideas

 

At the end of the day, manipulating files on the unRAID server is much slower in practice than when the data was on a RAID5 setup on a windows 7 machine.  I'd like that to improve to at least close to what it was previously.

 

Is that not a realistic expectation?

Are you still configured for jumbo frames? If so, set all Ethernet to default. You'll need a caches drive to maximize performance. However writes to files already in the array will be limited if the amount of data written is greater than server RAM.

Are you moving files to the unraid server from other machines, or from 1 disk on unraid to another disk on unraid?

 

If the latter, use a telnet session and midnight commander. That way you avoid the network.

 

 

Are you still configured for jumbo frames? If so, set all Ethernet to default. You'll need a caches drive to maximize performance. However writes to files already in the array will be limited if the amount of data written is greater than server RAM.

 

I do still have jumbo frames set for 9000.  I don't know how/where you suggest I "set all Ethernet to default.", but I'd be very happy to try this suggestion, if you can tell me more about it please.

 

I am considering a cache drive, but I'm still hesitant to purchase a license if I can't get better performance.  I know that a cache drive should improve things, but I'm not sure it will "fix" everything I'm having issues with so far.  I'm sure I just have something messed up on my end, but I'm not a network engineer, nor am I experienced with Linux, so I'm still fumbling around, looking for help (and appreciating all that I've gotten so far; thanks!)

 

I've got 4gb RAM in the unRAID box (and a 4GB thumb running it) so I don't think that's the issue.

 

Are you moving files to the unraid server from other machines, or from 1 disk on unraid to another disk on unraid?

 

If the latter, use a telnet session and midnight commander. That way you avoid the network.

 

mostly everything is from one disk to another on unRAID, as I store everything there, but there are plenty of new writes also.

 

I will try Midnight Commander for when I plan to move stuff around, but often, it's just renaming a file, or updating tags to videos/music, which some other software does/initiates/manages, so this isn't an option.

 

Perhaps my expectations are out of line.  Do most people experience unRAID at the same speed as other servers?  Or from windows disks directly?  I only have experience with RAID5 running from a windows 7 machine, and it just seemed to work faster, and with less "weirdness/flakiness" than I'm experiencing currently.

 

Granted, I'm mostly working from a wireless connection, but this was not a big issue before.

 

If I should just expect some more lag/flakiness, I can adapt, but I'm guessing this is not normal, and I'd like to eliminate it if possible.

 

I will eventually run some Cat6 here, to eliminate that, but even the HTPC which is wired to the switch isn't as smooth/fast as I think it should be, so there must be something in my setup 

Turn off jumbo frames use the default frame setting. Use all default settings. Unless all of the equipment supports jumbo in the same manner it will cause problems.

Turn off jumbo frames use the default frame setting. Use all default settings. Unless all of the equipment supports jumbo in the same manner it will cause problems.

both the NIC in the unRAID box and the switch support jumbo frames of 9000

 

D-Link DGS-1008G Gigabit Desktop Switch  -  Supports 9,000 Byte Jumbo Frames

http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=DGS-1008G

 

Intel EXPI9301CTBLK Network Adapter 10/ 100/ 1000Mbps  -  9 KB jumbo frames

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/network-adapters/gigabit-network-adapters/gigabit-ct-desktop-adapter-brief.html

 

I've been working with some files this evening, and on the HTPC/wired machine, it's much better, fine even, except for the occasional/frequent 40 seconds to see the directory I just clicked on in explorer, or the explorer navigation system inside another program.

 

it will work fine for 10 minutes, then I'll click on a directory, and it'll stall for a minute, then work again.

 

speeds to move a file from the HTPC to the unRAID box started off at 60MB/s, then tapered off to 25MB/s.  I can live with that, but the LONG lag all the time is frustrating.

 

other ideas, suggestions?  is it just the 3TB 5400 rpm Hitachi drives?

Yep, not much point trying to use Jumbo Frames unless you have long distances or high latencies involved, they are more likely to cause performance problems than magically fix them.

 

 

I've been working with some files this evening, and on the HTPC/wired machine, it's much better, fine even, except for the occasional/frequent 40 seconds to see the directory I just clicked on in explorer, or the explorer navigation system inside another program.

 

it will work fine for 10 minutes, then I'll click on a directory, and it'll stall for a minute, then work again.

 

speeds to move a file from the HTPC to the unRAID box started off at 60MB/s, then tapered off to 25MB/s.  I can live with that, but the LONG lag all the time is frustrating.

 

other ideas, suggestions?  is it just the 3TB 5400 rpm Hitachi drives?

I likewise experience the clicking on the directory using Win Explorer and then I sit there waiting for it to display. I open another explorer and click on Tower and the magnifying glass does its circular motions and no directories are displayed. In addition it happened while I was doing a move and it never finished the copying, got an error message that the location is no longer available and lost the content I tried to move as the move operation is a copy & delete. In my trying to narrow it down I entered the Tower IP address into the host file, no improvements. What I did and in most of the cases it works is enter into the RUN box (from Start Menu) \\tower\Disc1 and instantly a window opens with the disc & its directories. I have yet to use the command prompt for this as I am a GUI guy.

 

I started to search on the web for problems with Win Explorer and Linux and believe me there are boatload of complains. When in a telnet session I do not experience the same problems it is only in the Win Explorer GUI environment. Sofar none of the suggestions that I have found to correct this behavior of Win Explorer have helped. From my research I gathered that a native app that runs in Windows as well as in Linux should greatly minimize this experience.

 

I am following this thread with great interest as I too want to get a handle on this. In the meantime I am no longer moving content but copying and then do a delete. Also I use TeraCopy which again minimizes the problem but does on occasions also have the error message destination is not available. Funny thing is I click in the same location from a different browser window it is fine for a short time after I get this error message. I believe the guys that are running Linux on their client machines do not experience this. Please tell me I am wrong.

My suggestion for both of you would be to take a  K.I.S.S. approach

 

Disable jumbo frames and the like, it really is not needed for something like an unRAID application and can just muddy the waters.  Check the drivers on your Windows box and try using 4.7 on the unRAID machine.

 

5.0b12a was an attempt to fix a realtek NIC issue and it was not completely resolved.