October 12, 200817 yr I just got mu Unraid running today...I gave a gigabit connection which is working...my transfer rate for writes from my workstation to UnRaid is only 180-200 mbps. Thats only about 25 MB/s. Is this normal? Both PCs have GigaBit NICs. Motherboard: Abit AB9 Pro, 9 SATA, 2 gigabit ethernet ports. CPU: E4300 1.8GHz Ram: Crucial Balistix 2 X 1024MB Video: ATI All In Wonder PCI from about 2001 Drives to Date: 1 X WD 1TB (parity) ; 4 X WD 750 GB I think I'll be able to get about 14-15 in this case. Case: Antec ATX Full Tower from 2002 Flash: Lexar FireFly JumpDrive 2GB Power Supply. Antec True Power Trio 650W (Temp until my Corsair 620HX gets in..couldnt wait)
October 12, 200817 yr Yup, that's normal. Typical user can't get more than about 28% of rated throughput on a CSMA/CD topology (ethernet) and that 280 mb/s, or 35 mB/s.... and that's the top end.... more typical is around 25 mB/s.... and that's assuming your disks can keep up with it. If they only had gigabit Token Ring!
October 12, 200817 yr Would dual Ethernet ports on UnRaid help? Thanks it only recognizes and enables 1 port.
October 13, 200817 yr Yup, that's normal. Typical user can't get more than about 28% of rated throughput on a CSMA/CD topology (ethernet) and that 280 mb/s, or 35 mB/s.... and that's the top end.... more typical is around 25 mB/s.... and that's assuming your disks can keep up with it. If they only had gigabit Token Ring! Sorry for hijacking the thread, but you're the only one I've seen mention this limitation (which is similar to what I'm experiencing). It seems from other people's posts I've seen, they're having no trouble saturating their home gigabit connections using simple Windows File Sharing. Question, using iperf and the following batch file, I get around 600mb/s or 75MB/s transfers with a TCP window size of 64k or higher. @echo off iperf -c 192.168.1.100 -f M -t 60 -F "testvideo.mkv" iperf -c 192.168.1.100 -f M -t 60 -w 16k -F "testvideo.mkv" iperf -c 192.168.1.100 -f M -t 60 -w 32k -F "testvideo.mkv" iperf -c 192.168.1.100 -f M -t 60 -w 64k -F "testvideo.mkv" iperf -c 192.168.1.100 -f M -t 60 -w 128k -F "testvideo.mkv" pause Transferring the same file via Windows file sharing, I can only get 25MB/s peak transfer which is the same speed I'm getting with a 16k TCP window. Minimum write speed of the drive I'm copying to is 50MB/s. Both source and target computers are running Windows XP Pro and have Intel Pro 1000 GT PCI NIC's w/full duplex mode and TCP offload enabled. Switch is an HP ProCurve 1400-8G. Jumbo frames is disabled as I have devices on the network that don't support it. *sigh* I'm tempted to install Vista on my machines as it supposedly has a much improved network stack over XP.
October 13, 200817 yr Vista has had, and continues to have, network problems compared to XP so I wouldn't recommend going with Vista to get better performance. Bill
October 14, 200817 yr A write to Unraid has to read the data and parity disk and then write back to the data and parity disk. This is 2 reads and 2 writes for each block of data written to Unraid. What is your read speed? Peter
October 15, 200817 yr Vista has had, and continues to have, network problems compared to XP so I wouldn't recommend going with Vista to get better performance. Bill I see 80MB/s transferring Vista to Vista, but the best I see transferring to Unraid is 40-50MB/s (using a cache disk).
October 15, 200817 yr Samba on Linux is far from optimum... it is a clone of a closed, proprietary protocol from Microsoft (SMB), that had to be "reverse engineered." Earlier this year, Microsoft agreed (was forced) to share technical info on the SMB protocol with the Samba developers. Samba on Linux should get much better, sometime next year.
October 15, 200817 yr Vista has had, and continues to have, network problems compared to XP so I wouldn't recommend going with Vista to get better performance. Bill I see 80MB/s transferring Vista to Vista, but the best I see transferring to Unraid is 40-50MB/s (using a cache disk). Comparing Vista to Unraid was not the question, the question is comparing Vista to XP. Vista used to be far slower than XP but has almost caught up which means that moving from XP to Vista to gain performance is unlikely to help. Bill
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.