May 22, 200818 yr Hi, I`ve built an unraid server recently. It contains following hardware: - Asus P5E-VM Do - Intel Celeron 430 - 2 x 512mb 800 cl.5 memory - 3 x Samsung HD501LJ - 1x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 750GB (parity drive) - Be Quiet 450W PSU The problem is that I suffer insanely low transfer rates since the day I brought it to the live! I attach two videos. On the first you`ll find GUI overview, information about user shares I set and then a try to upload a piece of video. On the second I try to download something from the server to my PC. http://rapidshare.com/files/116737685/upstream.avi.html - Movie 1 ~ 21MB, Xvid http://rapidshare.com/files/116738653/downstream.avi.html - Movie 2 ~ 6.5MB, Xvid It`s just a shame how it works!
May 22, 200818 yr When I get the chance, I'll take a look, although someone else may get to it quicker. Would you take a look at my sig, and capture a syslog, either the current one if you haven't rebooted, or one that includes a very slow transfer. Please feel free to ignore the following. A number of us have been working on improving the documentation, especially the whole support experience, both for new users as well as all of us. It strikes me that it is all wasted, if we don't put the right info in the right place for the typical first-time user. Would you mind a few questions about how you first looked for help? It may help us help other new unRAID users. (Consider this one of those nuisance 'How are we doing' calls.)
May 22, 200818 yr Author I`m terribly sorry I didn`t attach the syslog. I should have known you`re not God and you can do nothing having just a movie showing the issue but not explaining this from the technical side. Here it is: http://rapidshare.com/files/116775253/syslog.rar.html First I tried to found the answer in the unRaid manual as I thought I had set something bad in GUI and when I realized everything was OK, I searched the forum for the answer. Although I found some topics about slow transfer rate issues none of them was similar to mine. Machines described in other threads reached better speeds and what is more important the speeds were constant whereas mine server`s initial speed of up/down stream is over 40MB/s, sometimes even over 50MB/s, and then it drops to such low levels like 5MB/s or even 3MB/s
May 22, 200818 yr With parity installed (which based on your movie you have), about the best WRITE performance you will get is 15MB/sec. Between 12 and 14 is typical. Still, you are only getting about 1/3 of that, which is slow but maybe not "insanely slow". Read performance is another matter. Speeds of 40+ MB/sec are common. Write performance is enhanced (sort of) by using a cache disk. The cache disk is a single, non-parity protected disk. Data is copied there and then moved to the array overnight. From your perspective the copy goes very fast (40+ MB/sec), while the slow copy occurs when you aren't waiting on it. I have noticed speeds in the 3-5 MB/sec when doing certain operations, like ripping a DVD. I get higher speeds with straight copies. I seem to remember another Vista user that had poor performance. Are you running SP1. I think that helped. You might be able to do an advanced search on Vista and see the resolution. I will leave to others to review the syslog and give you some ideas. I am not that knowledgeable about these types of performance issues.
May 22, 200818 yr What OS are you running on your windows machine? if vista, has the service pack been applied yet? What router and/or hub are you using on your LAN? What speed is it? Are you using a wireless connection from your PC, or a hard-wired one? Have you tried a different LAN cable? This applies even if the one you have is brand new, and even more so if you made it yourself. (I make most of mine, and still end up with having to re-do an end once in a while if I don't get the wires aligned correctly in the connectors the first time) I know I'm asking a lot of questions, but one of the answer to one of them might just provide the clue needed to figure out what is going on. Depending on how you have configured your lan, and specifically if you use a static IP address for your server, this post may help: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=1247.0 Joe L.
May 22, 200818 yr Just took a quick look at your syslog, and noticed 3 things, all small. The network dropped very briefly, about 15 to 20 seconds, but no errors, and no explanation available. Also, initializing your Intel network card results in this line: eth0: Unable to allocate MSI interrupt Error: -1 I haven't seen this before, and can't say it's significant, but is unusual. Your network is working, so it is probably harmless. You are using the new e1000e driver, optimized I believe for gigabit performance over PCI Express, a very good thing, but perhaps driver is *too* new. Also, pull your parity drive, your Seagate 750GB, and look for a small almost-hidden jumper near the connectors. Pull that, it is limiting you to SATA150 performance, and you may see a small improvement in write speed.
May 22, 200818 yr Author Write performance is enhanced (sort of) by using a cache disk. The cache disk is a single, non-parity protected disk. Data is copied there and then moved to the array overnight. From your perspective the copy goes very fast (40+ MB/sec), while the slow copy occurs when you aren't waiting on it. But I guess it`s not possible to be implemented under unRaid? What OS are you running on your windows machine? if vista, has the service pack been applied yet? What router and/or hub are you using on your LAN? What speed is it? Are you using a wireless connection from your PC, or a hard-wired one? Have you tried a different LAN cable? This applies even if the one you have is brand new, and even more so if you made it yourself. (I make most of mine, and still end up with having to re-do an end once in a while if I don't get the wires aligned correctly in the connectors the first time) 1. Yes I run Vista Ultimate x64 SP1, I`m sorry I didn`t mention about this. 2. I use crappy Linksys WAG354 V.2 although it should not matter as there is an one gigabit d-link`s switch over it and all the machines are connected there. 3. I hoped for a while it was due to the cable as all the cables in my home had been made of FTP class 6 (not shure) by me but I`ve just tried to replace that and it doesn`t help Depending on how you have configured your lan, and specifically if you use a static IP address for your server, this post may help: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=1247.0 I`ve got static IP`s everywhere in my home and have no problem with any 'lag'.
May 22, 200818 yr try what he tells you and yes, if cache was part of the array, it wouldn't be fast (and wouldn't be cache)
May 22, 200818 yr Write performance is enhanced (sort of) by using a cache disk. The cache disk is a single, non-parity protected disk. Data is copied there and then moved to the array overnight. From your perspective the copy goes very fast (40+ MB/sec), while the slow copy occurs when you aren't waiting on it. But I guess it`s not possible to be implemented under unRaid? The "Pro" version of unRAID does have the cache drive feature. What OS are you running on your windows machine? if vista, has the service pack been applied yet? What router and/or hub are you using on your LAN? What speed is it? Are you using a wireless connection from your PC, or a hard-wired one? Have you tried a different LAN cable? This applies even if the one you have is brand new, and even more so if you made it yourself. (I make most of mine, and still end up with having to re-do an end once in a while if I don't get the wires aligned correctly in the connectors the first time) 1. Yes I run Vista Ultimate x64 SP1, I`m sorry I didn`t mention about this. 2. I use crappy Linksys WAG354 V.2 although it should not matter as there is an one gigabit d-link`s switch over it and all the machines are connected there. 3. I hoped for a while it was due to the cable as all the cables in my home had been made of FTP class 6 (not shure) by me but I`ve just tried to replace that and it doesn`t help Depending on how you have configured your lan, and specifically if you use a static IP address for your server, this post may help: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=1247.0 I`ve got static IP`s everywhere in my home and have no problem with any 'lag'. Your response sounds a tiny bit defensive... please bear with me. First, Vista, even with SP1, has issues with networking. Tuning it (by setting some parameters on it) is possibly part of the solution. This thread has some details of what has been discovered by one unRAID user: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=1790.0 Second, if using a static IP the unRAID software is probably not using the nameserver. The two lines described to be added to the "go" script will resolve that, as long as they are added to be correct for your network. Did you try adding them and re-booting, or at a minimum, try using DHCP on the unRAID server. At least that will set the nameserver for you. Third, I'm happy to hear you used good quality cable when wiring your house. That however would completely go to waste if you did not properly attach the ends. In other words, there are two different "standards" for attaching the connectors. One for "telephone" use, and the other for data use. They will both result in DC connectivity being established, so a simple cable tester will show them to be fine. They pair up the pins on the connector differently however, so a "telephone" wired cable will perform poorly at higher speeds on your LAN. It might work at slow speeds, or for short lengths, but all bets are off once you get longer lengths involved. open up a DOS window on your Vista box. Type: ipconfig The output will look something like this: (from my Vista PC) Windows IP Configuration Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Belkin Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::ade7:f527:eb43:1227%8 IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.2.7 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.2.1 Next, log onto the unRAID server using telnet. Type the following: ifconfig eth0 The output will look something like this: root@Tower:~# ifconfig eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:11:11:75:FB:7E inet addr:192.168.2.100 Bcast:192.168.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:641551077 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:368662384 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:3460299371 (3.2 GiB) TX bytes:2987863411 (2.7 GiB) Are you showing any errors, or droppped packets? if so, the cabling might be suspect, or the network card. While on the unRAID server, type: net lookup master and net lookup xyzzy (where xyzzy is the name of your vista PC) Let us know what the resulting output is when you type those commands. The answers to these questions will help to analyze what is going on on your network. Who knows, it might be something as simple as you having two machines accidentally on the same static IP address, or as complicated as an inefficient network chipset driver. Joe L.
May 23, 200818 yr Author Depending on how you have configured your lan, and specifically if you use a static IP address for your server, this post may help: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=1247.0 I managed to apply this and nothing seems to have changed. Your response sounds a tiny bit defensive... please bear with me. I`m really sorry if I sounded defensively or offensively anywhere but as you can guess reading my posts english is not my native language. First, Vista, even with SP1, has issues with networking. Tuning it (by setting some parameters on it) is possibly part of the solution. This thread has some details of what has been discovered by one unRAID user: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=1790.0 Ok, I applied these two keys in registry in order to disable the nagle algorithm but this also doesn`t seem to have any influence at either transfer rates or the 'lag' in listing directories Second, if using a static IP the unRAID software is probably not using the nameserver. The two lines described to be added to the "go" script will resolve that, as long as they are added to be correct for your network. Did you try adding them and re-booting, or at a minimum, try using DHCP on the unRAID server. At least that will set the nameserver for you. Also gave nothing Third, I'm happy to hear you used good quality cable when wiring your house. That however would completely go to waste if you did not properly attach the ends. In other words, there are two different "standards" for attaching the connectors. One for "telephone" use, and the other for data use. They will both result in DC connectivity being established, so a simple cable tester will show them to be fine. They pair up the pins on the connector differently however, so a "telephone" wired cable will perform poorly at higher speeds on your LAN. It might work at slow speeds, or for short lengths, but all bets are off once you get longer lengths involved. I attached the ends so that they are "one to one", does anything else in that activity matter? open up a DOS window on your Vista box. Type: ipconfig It returned: Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001] Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Windows IP Configuration Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : domain_not_set.invalid Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::88b4:d5e1:a616:156b%8 IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.8 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1 Tunnel adapter Local Area Connection* 6: Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : domain_not_set.invalid Tunnel adapter Local Area Connection* 7: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : IPv6 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 2001:0:d5c7:a2ca:89d:320b:3f57:fef7 Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::89d:320b:3f57:fef7%9 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : :: Next, log onto the unRAID server using telnet. Type the following: ifconfig eth0 It returned: root@Tower:~# ifconfig eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1E:8C:27:A0:F6 inet addr:192.168.1.3 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:161344 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:904914 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:12909980 (12.3 MiB) TX bytes:1339387233 (1.2 GiB) Base address:0xdc00 Memory:feb40000-feb60000 While on the unRAID server, type: net lookup master and net lookup xyzzy (where xyzzy is the name of your vista PC) Both returned 192.168.1.8, which is my computer`s ip. I think it is improper, am I right? Much thanks for the support you provide me trying to solve the problem!
May 23, 200818 yr I attached the ends so that they are "one to one", does anything else in that activity matter? ABSOLUTELY!!! The pairs are not "obvious, and it matters greatly ... 1 pair1+ 2 pair1- 3 pair2+ 4 pair3+ 5 pair3- 6 pair2- 7 pair4+ 8 pair4- any other pairing will give you horrible connectivity, believe me, I know Jim
May 23, 200818 yr You mean you haven't followed 568A or 568B? And it works? Please clear this our, because if this is the case, look no further. Maybe I (/we) just misunderstood.
May 23, 200818 yr Author You mean you haven't followed 568A or 568B? And it works? Please clear this our, because if this is the case, look no further. Maybe I (/we) just misunderstood. I`m sorry I wrote a stupidity. Actually I followed the 568B standard but I attached the mole so that it is U-turned comparing to the picture. Even though the transfer rate between two PCs is ok (~50mb/s) and the only problem in my network is with the unraid box. I tried changing the cable between the unraid box and the switch but it didn`t help either. P.S. I had to move some movies to the server becouse my D: disk had run out of free space and it reached normal speeds ~16MB/s. I don`t understand anything right now it works as it wants and there is no pattern for its behavior :-[
July 8, 200817 yr Author I`ve got some new information about the situation. Transfer rates are still very strange - downstream rate is about 8MB/s and upstream about 14MB/s. One thing that changed are network errors. Now, there are lots of them What can I do now? Should I change the network cables between my PC, Switch, and the unraid box? Is it the source of problems, or it all may be about the motherboard`s network card? P.S. Is there any way I can check the internal transfer rates between disks on the unraid server?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.