I recently upgraded to a 1Gbps on my fiber line. I use my connection for Sickbeard and am looking to get my shows a little faster.

I am currently getting speeds of aprox

Download Speed: 214050 kbps (26756.3 KB/sec transfer rate)

Upload Speed: 122627 kbps (15328.4 KB/sec transfer rate)

I am going to be upgrading from http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833704130 to http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833150141 and with the increased speed I would like to know a few things

1st my server is running on a dual core 939 with 4 gigs of ram

So would running a cash drive be worth those high speeds?

If not is my system too slow for the speeds that I am going to be getting?

Currently if it is down loading a really large file - Say a Blu Ray sometime my XBMC box has to stop and buffer. Hence why I am asking!

cache drive only speeds up writing to the array. not reading from it.

so if you get the cache drive you will speed up writing but you are running at risk until the data is moved to array.

the whole thing with cache drive is that you get the raw disk performance but no protection while data is on the disk.

 

 

So the problem that I am running into is that I can now download NZB so fast that when watching a show at the same time as a movie or show is downloading it will cause my show on XBMC to pause and buffer... Is there a way around this problem?

Actually I don't know if it has to deal with my connection speed as much as how full a few of my drive are... I have been reading over the forums and was reading http://lime-technology.com/wiki/index.php/Improving_unRAID_Performance#Disable_Windows_Network_Throttling

I guess that I need to start replacing them with bigger drives and will see how that goes

You can throttle you downloading in SAB and many other programs, or more likely you processor can't keep up with downloading, moving files, and streaming all at once

Also you are correct full drives bring my system to a crawl, nothing a little deleting or new drive can't fix tho

 

If you get to the point that you decide it is an I/O problem with your cache drive, then you might consider splitting duties.  Install an app drive outside the array that holds your db, index files, transcode segments etc and then allow your cache drive to do only that... cache array writes.

 

Taking it to the next step, as another discussion has, you might even consider using an SSD for the app drive as an processing that has to happen on the SAB files is apparently MUCH faster. And if you're using Plex to stream media, it has the added benefit of not having a drive spinning 24/7 due to PMS activity.

 

The main key is that you are separating array write activity from all other streaming activity.

 

But again, first you need to know for sure where your bottleneck is because if it isn't cache I/O then a separate app drive won't do anything.

 

[rereading your post before posting mine]

 

Wait .. you said XBMC ... so then you have no library files on your unraid box?  If so, ignore what I said except for the part abou finding the bottleneck before throwing hardware at the problem

I have been doing a little deleting... I am planning on picking up some more 3TB drives to replace my two 1TB drives that I still have in the raid. I could slow down SAB, but what would be the fun in that? I grabbed a video at an average of 11.3 MB/s and that was still only a 1/4 of my connection speed... My slowest part of my network is now my router. So I am looking for a new router as soon as I have the money.

As far as my unRAID server it is only hosting the files. I have a computer that is managing Sickbeard and SABnzbd while running XBMC. I plan on having at least one or two more XBMC machines running with in the next year as funds become available.

so I want to make sure that my unRAID server can also manage the bandwidth. So I guess that I am going to be upgrading my server hardware and then also put in bigger hard drives.

When I upgraded to a 100mbps connnection, I found SABnzbd could not keep up. I had already been using nzbget, but that validated it.

 

I recommend nzbget. It's much faster than SABnzbd. In your case, I'd add a fast cache drive and download to that. Set nzbget to unpack to an array drive. If you want to stream (play) off the array drive, you can have nzbget pause post-processing, which I find very useful.

 

Let us know how you get on. I can easily max out my 100mbps line with nzbget, even while unpacking, but YMMV. Depending on your ISP and/or routing to the NSP, you may need to change the number of connections to the NSP. I use 28 connections to SuperNews, but I also have SSL switched on.

I will have to try that one out... I think that I am going to try a Cashe drive.

I am okay with out protection for a few hours.

I currently have 20 connections, but I will have to see about getting more connections... Or would it be better to have a 2nd NSP running side by side with my current provider?

I am also running SSL

Adding a Cache drive SOLVED this problem for me 99% of the time.

 

It used to drive me nuts when XBMC would buffer everytime a new file was being written to the server.

 

Again, Cache drive solved this for me.

SAB also has an option to pause downloading while processing as Neilt0 mentioned about nzbget

I do have it set up to pause after downloading. Why would one client be faster then the other?

I do have it set up to pause after downloading. Why would one client be faster then the other?

nzbget has that function, but it can also pause post-processing altogether, so you can max out your line, continue downloading, then when the dest drive is not being used, post-process en masse.

 

SABnzbd and nzbget are very, very different programs. SAB runs under python (a slow, interpreted language) and nzbget was written in C (and I think with some assembler optimizations).

 

nzbget was written to run on routers, so is very efficient. It's ideal for low-powered NAS devices, but even on high-powered CPUs, it helps as it means it uses less CPU, leaving CPU for other tasks and/or it uses less power and/or it means it can download at a faster rate.

I do have it set up to pause after downloading. Why would one client be faster then the other?

nzbget has that function, but it can also pause post-processing altogether, so you can max out your line, continue downloading, then when the dest drive is not being used, post-process en masse.

 

SABnzbd and nzbget are very, very different programs. SAB runs under python (a slow, interpreted language) and nzbget was written in C (and I think with some assembler optimizations).

 

nzbget was written to run on routers, so is very efficient. It's ideal for low-powered NAS devices, but even on high-powered CPUs, it helps as it means it uses less CPU, leaving CPU for other tasks and/or it uses less power and/or it means it can download at a faster rate.

 

Sooooo you're saying its slower? 

I tried to play with the other, but it is being a little more difficult then SAB... plus their guide to setting up NZBget is not the best around...

I will have to play with it more. In the mean time my router is cutting my bandwidth in more then half.

With out the router

http://stage.results.speedtest.comcast.net/result/328159384.png

With the router

http://stage.results.speedtest.comcast.net/result/328225804.png

I think that I will still put in the cashe drive

What about the feature of bonding the network connections... Would that improve any lag at all?

Bonding isn't going to help you, your issue is that your internet connection is fast approaching the speed of your disks, exceeding it in terms of an array-protected disk.  A combination of not downloading while processing and moving everything sab - related to a cache drive should solve your issue, however even then you are likely to hit the upper limit of speed that sab is capable of.  A few people have eluded to that in this thread and there is plenty more posts on that over at the sab forums.

 

Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk

 

I am trying to figure out the other client that everyone is talking about... I guess that it's not a big deal if I can't use the full connection speed (even though I can't with my current router), but the biggest thing is not having the pausing while watching a TV show... So I guess that a cashe drive is going to be needed and will purchase with in the next few pay checks. Then from there I will have to worry about streaming to multiple XBMC boxes once I get them built