Hi

 

I just installed Unraid on my server, coming from FreeNAS, and it's not working great for me.

My system consists of the following:

 

Asrock C2750D4I

32GB ECC Kingston 1600MHz

7 x 3TB WD red

1 Kingston 120Gb SSD (to be replaced)

 

Right now I only got 3 WD reds and the SSD in it though.

 

My problem is the insanely slow SMB speeds, around 30 MB/s. Over FTP i get around 110 MB/s.

Since I use Ubuntu as my main OS I thought I'd try and mount it via NFS, the way I used to with freenas but I won't mount.

 

This is what I got in /etc/fstab

192.168.1.201:/mnt/user/Media/ /mnt/unraid/media/ nfs nolock,noatime,nodiratime,rw,hard,intr

 

Then when I try to mount it nothing happens, all I get is "mount.nfs: Connection timed out"

Anyone that knows a way to either tune SMB to acceptable speeds or at least a way to mount NFS-share in Ubuntu?

 

 

Cheers// Martin

Just realized that I forgot to set Export to YES.

Still, anyone got some tuning tips for SMB?

Do you have a parity drive? Are those read speeds or write speeds? Sounds pretty normal for writing to the parity protected array.

 

unRAID parity is realtime. Each write to a data disk also updates parity by reading the existing data, reading the existing parity, calculating the change the new data will make to parity, and writing data and writing parity.

 

Speeding up writes is one of the reasons for the cache drive feature.

I've set 1 of the drives as parity. Those are write speeds.

Even though It's a lot of work for the server/drives how come when I FTP I get way faster speeds?

I've set 1 of the drives as parity. Those are write speeds.

Even though It's a lot of work for the server/drives how come when I FTP I get way faster speeds?

If you're writing to a parity-protected disk you really can't get much faster. Probably you are seeing data being cached in memory. While there is free memory, linux will use it to cache I/O, so if that is the case you will only be limited by network speed, which is about what you were seeing. Once memory is used up and it has to wait for the data to actually be written to a parity-protected disk then you will get the reduced speed. FTP, SMB, NFS doesn't matter.

Okay, then I get it. Thanks for clearing it up for me, trurl.

Any other tweaks you would recommend to do to a fresh install?

I have no experience with Ubuntu and SMB, but with those disks I would expect write speeds closer to 50MB/s, maybe  Google ubunt smb tuning.

You say you are going to replace the SSD. Why? Depending on how your intended use it might be just right for a cache disk. I have 2 x 120GB SSDs in btrfs raid1 cache pool. But I only use cache for apps and never cache user shares writes.

I have no experience with Ubuntu and SMB, but with those disks I would expect write speeds closer to 50MB/s, maybe  Google ubunt smb tuning.

Yeah, guess I'll look into that.

 

You say you are going to replace the SSD. Why? Depending on how your intended use it might be just right for a cache disk. I have 2 x 120GB SSDs in btrfs raid1 cache pool. But I only use cache for apps and never cache user shares writes.

 

I got it working as a cache right now but it's an old and crappy Kingston SSDnow 300. First I had 2 120GB Intel 520 in the server but Unraid kept complaining that there were to many errors on them.

Guess I need to look into how to setup an SSD for apps only aswell.

I have no experience with Ubuntu and SMB, but with those disks I would expect write speeds closer to 50MB/s, maybe  Google ubunt smb tuning.

 

Write speeds depend on several different things.  First thing, of course, is the amount of RAM available for caching writes. 

 

Second thing, which most people tend to forget is file size.  A large number of small size files slow things down due to the overhead of allocating disk  space and writing the directory contents. (Backing the documents files from the Windows computers in my home is a case in point.)

 

Third thing is that if the file system is reiserfs, this file allocation time is reputed to increase as the disk fills up.  While many people don't notice this  for a long time until the array approaches capacity.

 

Fourth thing is the software actually used to do the transfers.  I frequently use TeraCopy to transfer files but the transfer speed seems slow compared to using ImgBurn to generate BluRay ISO. 

 

EDIT:

 

Fifth thing is that some software reports back when the write is finished to the cache not when the write from the cache to the disks has finished.  This tends to make some software look as though it is faster.