13 hours ago, JorgeB said:

Start by running a single stream iperf test in both directions and post the results.

Hi. This is my iperf test result Unraid(iperf client) to PC(iperf server).

=======================

Connecting to host 192.168.1.109, port 5201

[ 5] local 192.168.1.3 port 34750 connected to 192.168.1.109 port 5201

[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd

[ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 110 MBytes 921 Mbits/sec 0 608 KBytes

[ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 105 MBytes 881 Mbits/sec 0 356 KBytes

[ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 104 MBytes 869 Mbits/sec 0 286 KBytes

[ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 106 MBytes 892 Mbits/sec 0 288 KBytes

[ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 105 MBytes 881 Mbits/sec 0 283 KBytes

[ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 106 MBytes 886 Mbits/sec 0 288 KBytes

[ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 104 MBytes 868 Mbits/sec 0 286 KBytes

[ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 106 MBytes 887 Mbits/sec 0 288 KBytes

[ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 106 MBytes 885 Mbits/sec 0 283 KBytes

[ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 106 MBytes 885 Mbits/sec 0 5.66 KBytes

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr

[ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.03 GBytes 886 Mbits/sec 0 sender

[ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.03 GBytes 881 Mbits/sec receiver

iperf Done.

=========================

I think the network bandwidth and throughput is no problem.

And I have question, is there any ways to use cache when some file copy Unraid to PC?

In online, many documents just explain use cache when copy file PC(or another device) to Unraid.

12 hours ago, hilee said:

I think the network bandwidth and throughput is no problem.

That looks reasonable, it would be good to also see the other direction.

12 hours ago, hilee said:

And I have question, is there any ways to use cache when some file copy Unraid to PC?

There's no read cache option in Unraid, you can keep the files on a pool for faster access, zfs also has ARC and L2RC options to help with that and the most accessed files, but requires RAM and a dedicated device respectively.

14 hours ago, JorgeB said:

That looks reasonable, it would be good to also see the other direction.

There's no read cache option in Unraid, you can keep the files on a pool for faster access, zfs also has ARC and L2RC options to help with that and the most accessed files, but requires RAM and a dedicated device respectively.

14 hours ago, JorgeB said:

That looks reasonable, it would be good to also see the other direction.

There's no read cache option in Unraid, you can keep the files on a pool for faster access, zfs also has ARC and L2RC options to help with that and the most accessed files, but requires RAM and a dedicated device respectively.

Thank you reply.

I tested file copy spped via FTP, when I used FTP, the transfor speed average 100MB/s and very stable(stable meam is not waving when file transfer).

If when I change file system xfs to zfs, I can get better performance?

My server spec like below.

CPU : Intel i3-12100

RAM : DDR4 32GB

9 hours ago, hilee said:

If when I change file system xfs to zfs, I can get better performance?

That should not make any noticeable difference.

2 minutes ago, JorgeB said:

That should not make any noticeable difference.

That's sad news.. I just want 100MB/s average speed via SMB that's all..

Write access to the parity array will always be slower than single disk speed due to parity updates.

https://docs.unraid.net/unraid-os/manual/storage-management/#array-write-modes

Read access to the parity array will be at the speed of the single disk the file is on.

3 hours ago, hilee said:

That's sad news.. I just want 100MB/s average speed via SMB that's all..

That should not be difficult with the array, most disks are capable of that, for writes you would need to enable turbo write.

8 hours ago, hilee said:

That's sad news.. I just want 100MB/s average speed via SMB that's all..

Stop using the Array. Simple as that. The problem is FUSE.

You can jump through unlimited hoops for an unlimited amount of time plus perform whatever incantations you want, but you will never achieve 100MB/s average/sustained using the Array/FUSE layer with consistency.

I can achieve higher than 100MB/s consistently to/from any other machine using a single drive connected to the server on USB3 when it's added as a pool - NO ARRAY.

4 hours ago, JorgeB said:

That should not be difficult with the array, most disks are capable of that, for writes you would need to enable turbo write.

It's impossible with the array if you're running MacOS to connect to Unraid. I'm assuming other platforms will run into similar problems at some point or with some configurations.

On 2/2/2025 at 6:41 AM, maxita said:

After several tests I came to the conclusion that UNRAID 7 has some bug that limits the speed of writing and reading the disks

Hardly. I can easily get upwards of 200MB/s sustained all day every day over SMB on 2.5gbit LAN from my Macbook Air - reading and writing to spinning disks no less. ZFS ZRAID2 volume with 6 disks.

You need to make sure that your share has EXCLUSIVE ACCESS enabled - and that of course PERMIT EXCLUSIVE SHARES is enabled in the general share settings.

Edited May 26, 20251 yr by Espressomatic

13 hours ago, Espressomatic said:

but you will never achieve 100MB/s average/sustained using the Array/FUSE layer with consistency.

That's not typically correct, while FUSE will always have an impact, you should be able to constantly get over 100MB/s, unless you are transferring only very small files:

14 hours ago, JorgeB said:

That's not typically correct, while FUSE will always have an impact, you should be able to constantly get over 100MB

I found that even with Windows clients, that the throughput varies wildly and isn't consistent. When I'm checking that kind of thing, which admittedly was last sometime in 2024, I try to keep it to large files only - movies, isos, etc. I was using 1GbE hardware when last testing from Windows.

From a Mac it's of course abysmal and the Finder can lock up just opening a directory with 1000 files in it. Here it doesn't matter what networking gear is being used, IME. But since switching exclusively to ZFS for the shares I connect over SMB, it's been phenomenal. And directory listings are near-instant at all times, with large files sustaining speeds over 200MB/s on 2.5GbE USB-C adapter.

Edited May 27, 20251 yr by Espressomatic

After all, it means that to use high performance through file transfer, I have to use a raid pool rather than an array.

24 minutes ago, hilee said:

I have to use a raid pool rather than an array.

A stripped pool will always be faster than the array, but with recent disks, it is easy to get 200MB/s plus writing to the array, and 1GB/s+ to a pool, both through fuse.

Does Unraid's kernel have FUSE passthrough support? Is it enabled by default?

I'd been reading about it most of last year and while it was merged in spring 2024 to the linux kernel, Unraid didn't have support for it through the v7 beta cycle.

Edited May 29, 20251 yr by Espressomatic

8 hours ago, Espressomatic said:

Does Unraid's kernel have FUSE passthrough support? Is it enabled by default?

It's enabled in the kernel, but it needs other code changes for that to work, LT is going to look at it in the future.

It's good to hear. Since 7.0 beta and rolling out all new hardware over here, I've moved all primary stores to ZFS. One system is using spinners and all new drives going into it are the same size. Other systems are using exclusively NVME and don't require nearly as much storage, so I've felt pretty comfortable giving up Unraid's namesake feature, the array. The spinning rust system has a lot of available bays, so I'll keep one array volume for the largest of left-over drives, since they can spin up/down one at a time and I won't need to use them for primary access and therefore unlikely to access them directly from my Macs - but I'm super curious to validate passthrough when it's implemented.

14 hours ago, JorgeB said:

It's enabled in the kernel, but it needs other code changes for that to work, LT is going to look at it in the future.

Sounds great!! If when file tranfer over FUSE passthrough mode in Array, the speed similler like native connect?

Actually I changed all my disk Array to Pool, and I made all HDD to raid 0.

But I don't think this way is not recommand Unraid OS's.

9 hours ago, hilee said:

If when file tranfer over FUSE passthrough mode in Array, the speed similler like native connect?

Hopefully yes, but looks like it will benefit mostly large file transfers, and the main Unraid issue with FUSE is with small files, with large files you should easily get 1GB/s over FUSE.