December 22, 20187 yr Author Thanks again Johnnie, your help here is very much appreciated, as was everyone else's. Looks like I should be getting a pretty decent bump with the new hardware. I shouldn't have any bottlenecks other then a bit of CPU, which I'm ok with. Hopefully if someone is having a similar problem this will help them figure it out. Will be really nice if/when unraid can do parity calculations in multithread.
December 23, 20187 yr A week and a half ago ... On 12/11/2018 at 6:57 PM, UhClem said: ... you can use dskt2 (just specify the full list of drive-letters). In either case, if the ~1GB/s ceiling isn't replicated, a remaining candidate is the CPU, [if unRAID's 2-parity implementation is "uninspired" and single-threaded] -- check with mpstat (I think). To which, you replied: Quote Ran the following command dskt2 s m r k h g f e l p n o d c b This is the result sds = 164.02 MiB/sec sdm = 179.66 MiB/sec sdr = 151.12 MiB/sec sdk = 148.25 MiB/sec sdh = 115.86 MiB/sec sdg = 133.69 MiB/sec sdf = 131.94 MiB/sec sde = 140.57 MiB/sec sdl = 109.92 MiB/sec sdp = 164.80 MiB/sec sdn = 100.93 MiB/sec sdo = 148.13 MiB/sec sdd = 143.46 MiB/sec sdc = 126.61 MiB/sec sdb = 175.05 MiB/sec That 10-second test demonstrates that your system supports a concurrent bandwidth of at least 2100 MB/s; far exceeding your observed 1000-1250 MB/s bottleneck. Therefore, the "~1GB/s ceiling" is not replicated, and, as I stated, the remaining candidate is your CPU (based on 2-parity, single-thread, and an "uninspired" implementation). Regardless, you stated: Quote I'm running dual L5420's so while not modern, more than enough for parity sync. Lesson: When you are digging deep and trying to solve a perplexing puzzle (such as you were--in this thread), it is very important to question ALL of your own assumptions, for that is where blind spots lurk.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.