January 3, 20179 yr I just added my new SSD as a cache drive, and while initially getting speeds around 90 mb/s, they drop quickly to around 20mb/s, which is no faster than copying to the array directly. This copy is going to my array, but it seems that after a couple seconds it starts building parity and completely kills the copy speed. Any idea what can cause this? EDIT: Yep. Cache drive has to be enabled in the share itself, too. :-D silly me.
January 3, 20179 yr How were you getting 90MB/sec copy speed for part of this transfer even though it was writing parity?
January 3, 20179 yr How were you getting 90MB/sec copy speed for part of this transfer even though it was writing parity? Buffering in RAM most likely.
January 4, 20179 yr Author I dont think it is writing parity while I'm copying to SSD. The parity only comes in when the mover is triggered right?
January 4, 20179 yr How were you getting 90MB/sec copy speed for part of this transfer even though it was writing parity? Parity will be written "after" the transfer to the cache is finished and the mover is starting his work. When i trasfer data to my cache-SSD i have constant 98MB/s - even when i copy 100GB and more in one part. So thats normal. The bottleneck (in my case) is the Intel NIC because its a PCI-Controller When i use the internal PCIe-LAN (which is not always working well cause its a Realtek-Chip) i get about 113MB/s between my PC and the cache-SSD.
January 5, 20179 yr How were you getting 90MB/sec copy speed for part of this transfer even though it was writing parity? Parity will be written "after" the transfer to the cache is finished and the mover is starting his work. When i trasfer data to my cache-SSD i have constant 98MB/s - even when i copy 100GB and more in one part. So thats normal. The bottleneck (in my case) is the Intel NIC because its a PCI-Controller When i use the internal PCIe-LAN (which is not always working well cause its a Realtek-Chip) i get about 113MB/s between my PC and the cache-SSD. Right. But before they solved the issue they were not writing to cache and were still getting 90MB/sec
January 5, 20179 yr Community Expert Right. But before they solved the issue they were not writing to cache and were still getting 90MB/sec Buffering in RAM most likely.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.