Cessquill Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 I agree. Whilst unRaid may need to keep up to date with Kernels for hardware drivers, one has to retain the focus that this is primarily a NAS solution, and as such requires stability and data integrity over the latest of its foundation platform. I get that SMB might be an issue - and I don't experience great speeds personally - but it's not a showstopper, and as a consequence - if it ain't broke... Just my opinion though, and Tom is free to take the course of action he feels best. Link to comment
prostuff1 Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 I see. You probably express the opinions of the majority here. You honestly believe that 5.1 will come out before 2016. 5.X is likely going to be the maintenance branch going forward. - 5.X will become feature froze and only contain maintenance fixes. 6.X will be the 64bit continuation of unRAID. - I would like to see 6.0 released with NO OTHER CHANGES save for the move to 64bit. - Once that move is done and looks good, then start adding features. You urgently want something that says "final" on the label, even if it's exactly the same software that you're currently using. As a unRAID system builder, yes. While some people can grasp that RC16 might be "final" most see the beta/rc tag and wonder. When we build a server for a customer we steer them towards the latest RC assuming our testing has found it to be stable in our use case. Most of the time that is the case, but sometimes not. If a customer wants 3TB drive support then we have no choice but to go with the latest stable beta/rc we have tested. Mind-blowing. And it won't bother you, as long as "it isn't uselessly slow." That's a nice measure for quality. I can't argue with that. My HP microserver is running beta12 right now. I could give two flying pigs about what version it runs since it sits there as a CrashPlan backup machine and nothing more. parity checks probably take longer than with newer builds most likely but I don't care. The last uptime on that machine was 204 days and the only reason it was restarted was because I had to switch out the battery backup. Link to comment
Cessquill Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Is there any reason you seem to be overly aggressive here tashak? My personal opinions are... - The time it takes for a parity check doesn't really matter, as long as it does not impinge on regular use - I see this primarily as a WORM system - the write speeds are something I can deal with because they happen once - I queue up and walk away from. The read speeds are fine, since I have no streaming issues. Sure, 60mb write is fine, but for a Blu-ray I'll still drag, drop and do something else in reality I'm making the assumption that a majority of users have unRaid for media storage. I appreciate that might not suit all, but it does seem to be the case. I use SMB and it's not uselessly slow (with my spec). It's been quicker, but it's still very usable. That is, I've never had the occasion to need a DVD backup on the server faster than it will copy, rendering it useless. I love my unRaid server, but I'd wager that it sits idle a large proportion of the time. To get angry over such a system seems a bit of a waste. Link to comment
Cessquill Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Is there any reason you seem to be overly aggressive here tashak? It's a mild form of autism. As much as I think that my words are nice, someone always interprets them as overly aggressive. It's not your problem. It's always like that. The doc actually encourages me to participate in forums. I've never made it past 100 posts before my accounts gets deleted. Fair play, knock yourself out Link to comment
RockDawg Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 It's a mild form of autism. As much as I think that my words are nice, someone always interprets them as overly aggressive. It's not your problem. It's always like that. The doc actually encourages me to participate in forums. I've never made it past 100 posts before my accounts gets deleted. That's actually fairly funny. Problem is I can't tell of the poster is serious or not. Link to comment
optiman Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 The best I ever saw on my mombo is low 80's, and it was back on 4.7. Even then, it dropped at some point, not sure why or when. I was so new to unraid, I didn't really give it much attention. With v5, I've always seen 50's and low 60's re SMB speeds going from my Win7 box to the cache drive over gb. I also would like to know the best way to capture these speeds. I use Total Commander and it shows the speed during the copy. I guess my speeds are ok, for my setup. I'd like to hear if others with my same setup are getting better speeds with SMB. geeze, ok back to my question on SMB and to confirm what the issue is... I'd like to hear from others reguarding my speeds and expectations. I do not know if I have a SMB issue. Link to comment
drawz Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 The best I ever saw on my mombo is low 80's, and it was back on 4.7. Even then, it dropped at some point, not sure why or when. I was so new to unraid, I didn't really give it much attention. With v5, I've always seen 50's and low 60's re SMB speeds going from my Win7 box to the cache drive over gb. I also would like to know the best way to capture these speeds. I use Total Commander and it shows the speed during the copy. I guess my speeds are ok, for my setup. I'd like to hear if others with my same setup are getting better speeds with SMB. geeze, ok back to my question on SMB and to confirm what the issue is... I'd like to hear from others reguarding my speeds and expectations. I do not know if I have a SMB issue. There is a dedicated thread for that topic. By contributing, you may be able to help solve the problem (if there even is one). It sounds to me like this is not a common problem and may not be one at all. Link to comment
optiman Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 geeze, ok back to my question on SMB and to confirm what the issue is... I do not know if I have a SMB issue. Do you have a lice issue? Or you just don't know? huh? I'm simple wanting to know if I should be seeing better speeds, or if my SMB speeds are normal. I saw that Peter had posted he is seeing slower speeds with this current RC. what do you mean by "lice issue"? Link to comment
chickensoup Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 huh? I'm simple wanting to know if I should be seeing better speeds, or if my SMB speeds are normal. I saw that Peter had posted he is seeing slower speeds with this current RC. ... Hey Switchblade, Your question probably won't get answered in this thread as it doesn't seem to be an issue specific to this RC. The thread mentioned earlier regarding SMB issues is below. Try posting your speeds there and see if you have more luck. Here is the only thread I can find that suggests there is an SMB performance issue: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=28664.0 However, if you look in that thread, the latest posts indicate there probably is NOT an issue. It seems a little more research is needed, but so far Tom has not acknowledged an issue from what I can tell. Link to comment
nars Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 @Switchblade: I can tell you that I can get myself a lot more speed than you said ( I did posted recently at http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=28664.msg255628#msg255628 , maybe worth continue this discussion on that topic as drawz pointed... ), garycase posted below me with similar results... and apparently reading the forum for some time now I have the idea that other users can get similar speeds... however each system is a system... though our nic's should be similar... but there are many other factors... switch, cables, client pc's and software on them, etc... etc... Did you tested any other protocol to compare to smb results? try ftp. If you can't get more from ftp also test what speed you can actually read/write on unraid server itself... again more factors... on the server itself, controller, hdd speed (note that hdd's are a lot slower near the "end" of the hdd, same applicable to the client pc hd, you see...). Link to comment
trurl Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Just thought I would chime in with the stats on my monthly parity check with this release. Duration: 9 hours, 14 minutes, 41 seconds. Average speed: 90.2 MB/sec Seems OK to me. I have a mix of 3 and 2 TB drives. 16GB memory. Tunables (don't remember who I got them from right now): Tunable (md_num_stripes):2048 Tunable (md_write_limit):768 Tunable (md_sync_window):1024 Link to comment
Harpz Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Little off topic, according to unMenu my parity check finished in 41965sec, since i stopped using SF how do i get / work out // convert to get the Duration: 9 hours, 14 minutes, 41 seconds. Average speed: 90.2 MB/sec format Link to comment
StevenD Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Little off topic, according to unMenu my parity check finished in 41965sec, since i stopped using SF how do i get / work out // convert to get the Duration: 9 hours, 14 minutes, 41 seconds. Average speed: 90.2 MB/sec format Total KiloBytes (parity drive size) / 1024 / Total Seconds = MB/s Mine should be finished in the next few minutes and I will post mine. Link to comment
StevenD Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 This months parity check speed with RC16c. 3907030988 KB / 1024 / 49526 seconds = 77.04 MB/s A little slow, IMO. Link to comment
Harpz Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 2930266532 KB / 1024 / 41965 sec = 68.18 MB/s Hmm usually around the early 80MB/s What easiest way to convert sec in to hours and min? Link to comment
RockDawg Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Or here (online calculator): http://www.easysurf.cc/utime.htm#hmstos Link to comment
jjslegacy Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Monthly parity: 5 hours 20 minutes average speed of 156mb/s - looks good to me as usual! Link to comment
mr-hexen Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 finished in 36417sec @ an avg of 88mb/s here. same as usual. Link to comment
mikejp Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 7 hours, 49 minutes, 14 seconds. Average speed: 106.6 MB/sec Same as last month... Link to comment
JustinChase Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I guess having lots of different sized drives isn't helpful with parity speed. this is pretty normal, but this month I didn't have anything downloading or using the system during the parity check, so I really thought it'd be faster this month... 13 hours, 35 minutes, 18 seconds. Average speed: 61.3 MB/sec I guess I'll need to play with the tunables one of these days. I keep waiting for final to drop. Link to comment
StevenD Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Someone was going to put together a script that would test your system and determine the "best" set of tunables. Cant remember who it was or what happened to that project though. Link to comment
JonathanM Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Someone was going to put together a script that would test your system and determine the "best" set of tunables.To the best of my recollection, somebody said a script would be nice, could somebody please write one. I don't think anybody ever said they were going to do it. Link to comment
optiman Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 12 hours, 59 minutes, 6 seconds. Average speed: 64.2 MB/sec Link to comment
dalben Posted August 4, 2013 Share Posted August 4, 2013 Last checked on Thu Aug 1 10:00:08 2013 SGT (three days ago), finding 0 errors. > Duration: 9 hours, 30 minutes, 6 seconds. Average speed: 117.0 MB/sec Link to comment
Recommended Posts