Copying from windows slow

[skank]

Im having very slow copying speed from a windows 10 foler to an my unraid share, which uses a cache disk

Its gigabit lan for sure

In the past i had 30+ speed, but now i only get 2-6MB/s

However the other way around i get 50-60 MB/s

I dont undstand this. Someone can help pls.

Log added

unraid-syslog-20160217-2102.zip

[trurl]

For V6 support, always go to Tools - Diagnostics and post the complete diagnostics zip. please?

[skank]

Will do

I might update first

Still on 6.0.1

Will go 6.1.8 first

I'll report back

[skank]

Still the same on 6.1.8

Here's diagnostics file

 

unraid-diagnostics-20160219-2019.zip

[trurl]

Your syslog only includes 34 seconds just after a reboot. It would be better to have a diagnostic that includes the activities you are trying to diagnose.

Feb 19 20:17:04 Unraid rsyslogd: [origin software="rsyslogd" swVersion="8.6.0" x-pid="1116" x-info="http://www.rsyslog.com"] start
...
Feb 19 20:17:10 Unraid kernel: md: import disk1: [8,48] (sdd) WDC_WD20EARS-00MVWB0_WD-WCAZA2325257 size: 1953514552
...
Feb 19 20:17:38 Unraid logger:  Updating templates...  Updating info...  Done.

 

Disk1 has 196 pending.

Serial Number:    WD-WCAZA2325257
...
197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0032   200   199   000    Old_age   Always       -       196

Rebuild to another disk and then you can preclear this one to see if it can be cleared up.

 

Doesn't the Dashboard give you some indication about this disk? Post a screenshot.

 

[skank]

Huh smth wrong with disk 1?

It is green though

I cant rebuild to another disc cause i dont have a spare one

Dashboard doesnt give anything

How come syslog doesnt include everything? I posted it after the stuff i tried to copy

[trurl]

What do you have on the Dashboard under System Status for the numbers labeled flash : log : docker?

[skank]

What do you have on the Dashboard under System Status for the numbers labeled flash : log : docker?

 

7% 2% 34%

[skank]

Anyone please help, this is driving me crazy, why is it so slow? And the other way around not?

[JorgeB]

Like trurl pointed out disk1 should be replaced ASAP.

 

Do you get the same low speed writing to the cache disk or directly to an array disk?

 

[skank]

Like trurl pointed out disk1 should be replaced ASAP.

 

Do you get the same low speed writing to the cache disk or directly to an array disk?

 

i dont see anythingn wrong with disk 1?

 

yes same low speed writing to cache or directly to array disk using that cache

 

i dont get the point either why im getting low speed cause something would be wrong with disk 1

when copying to disk say 5 its the same speed, how can another disk affect write speed then?

[JorgeB]

Device Model:     WDC WD20EARS-00MVWB0
Serial Number:    WD-WCAZA2325257

197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0032   200   199   000    Old_age   Always       -       196

 

I’m not saying your low speed is related to disk1, but that disk should be replaced, almost certainly has bad sectors, at the very least do an extend SMART test.

 

If speed is the same writing to cache or disk first thing I would suspect is network related, try copying from another desktop, and if you have, another switch/NIC/cable.

 

 

[skank]

Device Model:     WDC WD20EARS-00MVWB0
Serial Number:    WD-WCAZA2325257

197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0032   200   199   000    Old_age   Always       -       196

 

I’m not saying your low speed is related to disk1, but that disk should be replaced, almost certainly has bad sectors, at the very least do an extend SMART test.

 

If speed is the same writing to cache or disk first thing I would suspect is network related, try copying from another desktop, and if you have, another switch/NIC/cable.

 

Why would it be network related? The way around, so copying from that unraid disk, to my windows pc is fast 50MB/s but the other way around its not

 

Running extended smart test

[JorgeB]

In my experience, working better in one direction does not rule out network.

[mr-hexen]

Are the disks you'r writing to nearly full and reiserFS? If so, this is a known result, not necessarily a problem or bug.

[skank]

Are the disks you'r writing to nearly full and reiserFS? If so, this is a known result, not necessarily a problem or bug.

 

no cache this disk isnt full, its empty

 

i tried with my laptop which also win10

copying to unraid over wifi (not gigabit9 and i get a steady 5MB/s which is normal..

whatrs wrong then with my desktop?

[trurl]

...whatrs wrong then with my desktop?

Have you tried replugging it or changing the cable? One bad wire, one bad pin, one bad connection and you would get exactly the symptom of bad speed in one direction.

[itimpi]

...whatrs wrong then with my desktop?

Have you tried replugging it or changing the cable? One bad wire, one bad pin, one bad connection and you would get exactly the symptom of bad speed in one direction.

I do not think many people realise that the speed at which an Ethernet cable works can depend on both whether all pins are connected, and the quality of the signals going over the connections.  The problem is that typically the link does not stop working with an imperfect cable - just degrades in speed.

[skank]

...whatrs wrong then with my desktop?

Have you tried replugging it or changing the cable? One bad wire, one bad pin, one bad connection and you would get exactly the symptom of bad speed in one direction.

I do not think many people realise that the speed at which an Ethernet cable works can depend on both whether all pins are connected, and the quality of the signals going over the connections.  The problem is that typically the link does not stop working with an imperfect cable - just degrades in speed.

 

i will check that.

Other thing i noticed is copying speed over usb isnt that well either

I still have to validate my windows, could that be the cause?

 

 

 

[skank]

Here's smart report of the disk

 

unraid-smart-20160221-2125.zip

[itimpi]

Here's smart report of the disk

That disk is showing 196 Pending sectors indicating sectors that cannot be read reliably.  Since any value higher than 0 is a potential cause for concern as it affects unRAID's ability to reliably rebuild a disk that fails without risk of data loss or data corruption then this disk should probably be replaced as soon as possible.

 

Pending sectors can sometimes clear themselves if you rewrite them so running a preclear cycle on the disk can act as a test on whether you can get the value back to 0 and  consider using this disk in the future.

[skank]

Here's smart report of the disk

That disk is showing 196 Pending sectors indicating sectors that cannot be read reliably.  Since any value higher than 0 is a potential cause for concern as it affects unRAID's ability to reliably rebuild a disk that fails without risk of data loss or data corruption then this disk should probably be replaced as soon as possible.

 

Pending sectors can sometimes clear themselves if you rewrite them so running a preclear cycle on the disk can act as a test on whether you can get the value back to 0 and  consider using this disk in the future.

 

So clear the disk? and then rebuild?

 

Can you help me with that, how to do  this?

[JorgeB]

Num  Test_Description    Status                  Remaining  LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
# 1  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%      7283         -

 

The disk passed the extended SMART test, first time I’ve seen a disk with so many pending sectors pass it without read errors, I still would replace it when possible.

 

Since there are no read errors preclear probably won’t clear the pending sectors.

[trurl]

Here's smart report of the disk

That disk is showing 196 Pending sectors indicating sectors that cannot be read reliably.  Since any value higher than 0 is a potential cause for concern as it affects unRAID's ability to reliably rebuild a disk that fails without risk of data loss or data corruption then this disk should probably be replaced as soon as possible.

 

Pending sectors can sometimes clear themselves if you rewrite them so running a preclear cycle on the disk can act as a test on whether you can get the value back to 0 and  consider using this disk in the future.

 

So clear the disk? and then rebuild?

 

Can you help me with that, how to do  this?

Rebuild to a new disk, preferably one that you have already tested by preclearing it. Then you can use preclear on the old disk to see if it can be reused.