dikkiedirk Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 How much slowdown can be expected when running SABNZB on an array disk and let it download,verify,repair and unpack on the array disk. Will SABNZB itself get slow when I have more downloads in the que of sizes ranging from 700MB to 30 GB? Will it slowdown or even stall the whole server? Will it slowdown playback of DVD-ISOs, mkv's or m2ts(bluray) The server has a socket 775 Core2Duo CPU @ 2.4 GHz and 4GB DDR2. Quote Link to comment
Influencer Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 It will vary between setups, but you can move a file to the array to test the speed of the transfer, that will be the fastest transfer speed you'll get. This is most likely still higher than your download speed so that shouldn't be a bottleneck. The problem will come in with SHFS. It has recently come to light that SHFS can significantly slowdown transfers because of how much processing power it can use. If sab is verifying/repairing, it might compete with SHFS for CPU time, which could slow it down. It shouldn't slow down or stall the server, and shouldn't slow playback of your files unless you are transcoding, then it might. You can run some tests, have sab download directly to the array and watch it with "top" to see if it starts competing with SHFS. Your processor might be fast enough that it isn't an issue. Quote Link to comment
dikkiedirk Posted September 15, 2012 Author Share Posted September 15, 2012 It will vary between setups, but you can move a file to the array to test the speed of the transfer, that will be the fastest transfer speed you'll get. This is most likely still higher than your download speed so that shouldn't be a bottleneck. The problem will come in with SHFS. It has recently come to light that SHFS can significantly slowdown transfers because of how much processing power it can use. If sab is verifying/repairing, it might compete with SHFS for CPU time, which could slow it down. It shouldn't slow down or stall the server, and shouldn't slow playback of your files unless you are transcoding, then it might. You can run some tests, have sab download directly to the array and watch it with "top" to see if it starts competing with SHFS. Your processor might be fast enough that it isn't an issue. Thank you, but what is SHFS? Did I miss something? Quote Link to comment
steini84 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Just put it on the cache drive Quote Link to comment
Influencer Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 SHFS is the "SHell FileSystem". According to a post Joe L. made in the past, it has been modified by LimeTech for unraid, so is "proprietary" . It is what makes the shares work with being on different disks. Whenever you add something to a disk shfs looks at your share settings and the state of the drives to decide where to put the new file. Also tells unraid where the file is when you access it through the user share. Quote Link to comment
ohlwiler Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 My server has about that same horsepower and I ran SABNZB on an array drive for a couple of months no problem. The only disadvantages I saw was the constantly spun up parity drive and slower parity checks. Playback of high bitrate files did not cause problems. If you can, I would run SABNZB off a drive outside the array, but it isn't that critical. Quote Link to comment
syntaxx Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Sorry to chime in but I believe if its running in the array your disk will not spin down correct? Also cache drive needs to be on license and not free? how much cache drive size is recommended? Thanks Quote Link to comment
dikkiedirk Posted September 16, 2012 Author Share Posted September 16, 2012 Any word on whether SABNZB itself will slowdown when the que is filled with many downloads and it is verifying, repairing and unpacking a finished download at the same time as it is downloading the rest of the que? Or is this more memory dependant? Quote Link to comment
lionelhutz Posted September 16, 2012 Share Posted September 16, 2012 You should be fine speed wise with that memory and CPU. The que is just a que, it will still likely be downloading one file while unpacking another no matter how full the que is. Quote Link to comment
bobbintb Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 i havent had any issue. i was thinking of adding a cache drive but now im thinking against it. i dont see any real benefit for me. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.