GHunter Posted May 21, 2018 Share Posted May 21, 2018 My difference in parity check speeds on unRAID v6.5.3-rc1 vs. unRAID v6.5.2 is within 2 minutes. It completed in 10 hours and 29 minutes. It's always been fairly consistent throughout the different unRAID 6 versions. Quote Link to comment
ryoko227 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Updated from 6.5.1 to 6.5.3-rc1 on my Home TR system. The VMs are located on a isolated m.2, and since this was directed at certain intel cpus, didn't expect to see or see any noticable boot speed changes. No issues to note with the update. Quote Link to comment
archedraft Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 Just wanted to report that my parity check speeds are the same as before. The faster VM boot time is very noticeable. Thanks. Quote Link to comment
Frank1940 Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 I recall that one time that changes were made to the kernel preemption mode that the low end CPU had some issues. I have not seen anyone who is running one of these systems actually report in on their experiences. So if you are running a Sempron, old Celeron, Intel Atom processors, and others of the ten year old vintage, please give this 6.5.3-rc1 an evaluation. You want to have a look at file transfers of high bit video as that is where the problems were that time.. Quote Link to comment
zoggy Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 @limetech, while I do not do any vm's on unraid I just wanted to say how much I appreciate how transparent you are about the issue/testing/etc with regards to the issue. makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside that I'm glad I made the choice to go with unraid several years back. Quote Link to comment
cybrnook Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 Parity check, no change: 2018-05-01, 12:45:20 8 hr, 45 min, 19 sec 126.9 MB/s OK 0 2018-04-01, 12:45:09 8 hr, 45 min, 8 sec 127.0 MB/s OK 0 2018-03-01, 12:45:19 8 hr, 45 min, 18 sec 126.9 MB/s OK 0 2018-02-01, 12:45:24 8 hr, 45 min, 23 sec 126.9 MB/s OK 0 2018-01-01, 12:42:56 8 hr, 42 min, 55 sec 127.5 MB/s OK 0 2017-12-08, 23:30:57 9 hr, 23 min, 5 sec 118.4 MB/s OK 0 2017-11-01, 12:41:52 8 hr, 41 min, 51 sec 127.8 MB/s OK 0 2017-10-01, 12:41:32 8 hr, 41 min, 31 sec 127.9 MB/s OK 0 2017-08-29, 09:30:27 8 hr, 41 min, 18 sec 127.9 MB/s OK 0 2017-08-01, 08:42:14 8 hr, 42 min, 13 sec 127.7 MB/s OK 0 2017-07-01, 08:42:41 8 hr, 42 min, 40 sec 127.6 MB/s OK 0 2017-06-01, 08:42:43 8 hr, 42 min, 42 sec 127.6 MB/s OK 0 2017-05-01, 08:42:43 8 hr, 42 min, 42 sec 127.6 MB/s OK 0 2017-04-01, 08:42:38 8 hr, 42 min, 37 sec 127.6 MB/s OK 0 2017-03-01, 08:42:44 8 hr, 42 min, 43 sec 127.6 MB/s OK 0 2017-02-01, 08:45:14 8 hr, 45 min, 13 sec 127.0 MB/s OK 2017-01-01, 08:45:01 8 hr, 45 min 127.0 MB/s OK 2016-12-02, 05:40:30 8 hr, 43 min, 42 sec 127.3 MB/s OK 2016-10-28, 18:22:40 8 hr, 46 min, 32 sec 126.6 MB/s OK Quote Link to comment
Lev Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 @limetech any specific list of test-cases you'd like to see performed to give confidence towards your goal? Quote Link to comment
marshy919 Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 Wow Significantly faster booting to Win10 VM with 1 GPU and 1 USB controller. 9 threads and an emulator pin. 6.5.2 = 1:46:22 to desktop 6.5.3-rc1 = 00:39:60 to desktop Quote Link to comment
Warrentheo Posted May 23, 2018 Share Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) One minor bump on mine, I have a thumbprint scanner hooked to a USB3 hub, that hub is connected to a USB3 Controller, that controller is booted as connected to UnRaid, but then is disconnected and attached to a Win10 VM... First boot after the upgrade, this thumb scanner didn't connect correctly, but resetting it by unplugging it and reconnecting it to the hub fixed it... 4 full system reboots after this didn't have this issue (no noticeable issues during these boots) I have noticed significant boosts in VM initialization times, as well as a small boost to general VM/system responsiveness... I have attached the diagnostics for that first boot just in case... qw-diagnostics-20180523-1205.zip Edited May 23, 2018 by Warrentheo Quote Link to comment
nickp85 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) Just installed 6.5.3rc1 and can report significant decrease in my Windows 10 VM POST time. I allocate 8 of 12 logical cores and 16 GB of memory and VM would always take about 30 seconds to POST and become to boot and CPU would spike on all those cores when it did. I have an 8700K with a Z370 motherboard with 32 GB RAM if that helps any. Thank you for the improvement! I just thought it was normal cause it's a VM configured with a lot of CPU and memory. Edited May 25, 2018 by nickp85 Quote Link to comment
CHBMB Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 Just installed 6.5.3rc1 and can report significant increase in my Windows 10 VM POST time. I allocate 8 of 12 logical cores and 16 GB of memory and VM would always take about 30 seconds to POST and become to boot and CPU would spike on all those cores when it did. I have an 8700K with a Z370 motherboard with 32 GB RAM if that helps any. Thank you for the improvement! I just thought it was normal cause it's a VM configured with a lot of CPU and memory. Do you mean decrease in post time? Quote Link to comment
Jorgen Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 Slight but welcome performance boost for my VM on a Haswell CPU. Haven't noticed any .adverse side effects. M/B: ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. - H87I-PLUS CPU: Intel® Core™ i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz HVM: Enabled IOMMU: Enabled Cache: 256 kB, 1024 kB, 8192 kB Memory: 16 GB (max. installable capacity 16 GB) OSX VM, OVMF, Q35-2.10, 4 of 8 logical cores, 8GB RAM, GT710 passed through 6.5.2 To Clover boot screen: 18s To fully booted VM: 55s Geekbench results: single 4278, multi 8444 6.5.3-rc1 To Clover boot screen: 9s To fully booted VM: 37s Geekbench results: single 4325, multi 8494 Geekbench compare before/after: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/8399440?baseline=8399110 Quote Link to comment
marshy919 Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 Not sure if this is user error or a bug with docker. If you install a docker, and change the name - the docker is still accessible, but you lose the edit and webui buttons. Reproduce: install "Grafana" docker, rename to "grafana". I thought it'd be 'neat' to organise mine all to the same, however in doing so I lost all control to everything. Quote Link to comment
Squid Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 1 hour ago, marshy919 said: Not sure if this is user error or a bug with docker. If you install a docker, and change the name - the docker is still accessible, but you lose the edit and webui buttons. Reproduce: install "Grafana" docker, rename to "grafana". I thought it'd be 'neat' to organise mine all to the same, however in doing so I lost all control to everything. Probable cause for the devs: The user-template gets deleted when this happens, and doesn't get recreated. Work-Around @marshy919 Remove the container's you want to rename. Reinstall via Apps, and rename them at that time. System is fine when the name changes during initial install. Quote Link to comment
eschultz Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 3 hours ago, Squid said: Probable cause for the devs: The user-template gets deleted when this happens, and doesn't get recreated. Just committed a fix for this case. 2 Quote Link to comment
nickp85 Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) To add some numbers to my marked VM boot improvement... here's the numbers with 6.5.3rc1. Unfortunately don't have numbers from 6.5.2 but it was a long time to POST. I'd guess at 30 seconds? Time to Tiano logo: 7.72 seconds Time to Windows login: 12.82 seconds Total boot time: 20.55 seconds Edited May 26, 2018 by nickp85 Quote Link to comment
marshy919 Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 (edited) Just had a lockup, initially thought it was just the VM, but the webUI was unresponsive also. Computer had to be hard shutdown. Not sure if this is right, I just grabbed the diagnostics via the tool. tower-diagnostics-20180527-1227.zip Edit: happened again.Pc reboots and starts up fine. Both times it's crashed the vm was gaming. Edited May 27, 2018 by marshy919 Quote Link to comment
Kewjoe Posted May 27, 2018 Share Posted May 27, 2018 I'm seeing a huge decrease with SeaBios as well. Host Intel Xeon E5-2699 v4 Asrock X99 Taichi 32GB ECC Ram Guest - Linux Mint 18.3 SeaBios 6 CPU Cores / 12 Threads 12GB RAM Passed Through: AMD Radeon HD 6870 (Video & Audio) Onboard Audio Onboard USB 3.1 controller 2x USB 3.0 PCI-E x1 controllers Boot to Linux Mint Login unRAID 6.5.1 7 minutes, 56 seconds unRAID 6.5.3-rc1: 2 minutes, 52 seconds I didn't try 6.5.2, i can if needed. Quote Link to comment
crazygambit Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) I was having this issue with a Windows 10 VM. The more cores I assign the slower it gets, sadly upgrading to 6.5.3-rc1 did nothing to help the issue. It's not on startup (or maybe it is, but it's undetectable), but it's CPU performance while using the VM. I posted about it here: I followed all the instructions. I have an i5-8400 with 16GB ram (6 cores, no hyperthreading). Isolated cores 0 and 1 to unraid. If I assign only 1 core (core 5), the Excel macro I'm testing solves in 3:19, but if I use 4 cores (2,3,4,5) then it takes 4:02. It's the same on 6.5.2 and 6.5.3-rc1. I suspect I'm not the only one, since I wouldn't have known anything was wrong if I hadn't tested with a complex macro since otherwise the difference is too negligible to tell. This is pretty disappointing since I just upgraded MB, CPU and RAM to be able to work on a Windows VM and keep my unraid server. But I get comparable performance with my notebook. This is the first time I've run a VM in unraid, so there could definitely be something I'm missing, so if anyone has any ideas I'd love to test them out. Alternatively, I'd love to see people do some Excel benchmarks with 1 and then multiple cores to see if I'm the only one with the problem (unfortunately I can't share the macro since it's stuff from my work). Edit: After some further testing it turns out Excel is the culprit. In an unbelievable twist disabling multi core calculations actually results in faster calculations in Excel on any computer (and for all the macros I've tested). Edited May 28, 2018 by crazygambit Quote Link to comment
pwm Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 1 hour ago, crazygambit said: Edit: After some further testing it turns out Excel is the culprit. In an unbelievable twist disabling multi core calculations actually results in faster calculations in Excel on any computer (and for all the macros I've tested). One problem with multi-core computations is how much synchronization that is required. If too much synchronization is needed, then the code may run slower with multiple cores than without synchronization using a single core. Multiple cores works best when the individual cores gets independent tasks that do not depend on each other - then each core can run as fast as possible (or at least as fast as the total available memory bandwidth allows). Quote Link to comment
crazygambit Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 5 hours ago, pwm said: One problem with multi-core computations is how much synchronization that is required. If too much synchronization is needed, then the code may run slower with multiple cores than without synchronization using a single core. Multiple cores works best when the individual cores gets independent tasks that do not depend on each other - then each core can run as fast as possible (or at least as fast as the total available memory bandwidth allows). I get that, but if it detects that while trying to synchronize multiple cores performance is going about half as fast as using only one core, maybe it should just give up and prioritize one core. You have more resources, but decide to use them so inefficiently that now it's taking significantly longer, then you're not very good at your job, let me tell you. This happens on both 64 and 32 bit versions btw. And it performs the fastest if I assing 4 cores to the Windows VM, but let Excel only use 1. Quote Link to comment
itimpi Posted May 29, 2018 Share Posted May 29, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, crazygambit said: I get that, but if it detects that while trying to synchronize multiple cores performance is going about half as fast as using only one core, maybe it should just give up and prioritize one core. You have more resources, but decide to use them so inefficiently that now it's taking significantly longer, then you're not very good at your job, let me tell you. This happens on both 64 and 32 bit versions btw. And it performs the fastest if I assing 4 cores to the Windows VM, but let Excel only use 1. That is a classic symptom of a workload that only uses a single core efficiently in that performance of such applications decrease as the core count increases. In such cases you get higher performance by using a processor with less cores but with faster individual cores. The assumption on most modern systems is that there is enough going on in parallel that overall system responsiveness improves even if individual tasks can suffer slightly. It is also one of the reasons why the PC world has not seen performance increases in line with core counts going up. Edited May 29, 2018 by itimpi Quote Link to comment
Interstellar Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 (edited) All good and speedy here! Passthrough VMs started much quicker than usual from cold. SuperMicro X10SLL-F, 1230v3, RX560, Intel quad NIC Edited May 31, 2018 by Interstellar Quote Link to comment
DZMM Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 (edited) My children no longer make fun of my VM with more cores taking longer to boot - thanks! Edited June 1, 2018 by DZMM Quote Link to comment
pwm Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 4 hours ago, DZMM said: My children no longer make fun of my VM with more cores taking longer to boot - thanks! Since they are children, the obvious question would then be what they are making fun of instead? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.