theunraidhomeuser Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 (edited) Hi everyone, I know this has been asked a couple of times, but I am still not sure I get it. I used to have an UBUNTU 18.04 LTS server with manually configured SMB shares, Webmin etc. I now moved to UNRAID (today). My NAS is an AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen 5 3500 CPU, 32GB RAM and ASUS ROG B450-I motherboard, 2 x brand new 14TB IronWolf SATA drives, 1 (fast!) NVMe 512GB Before moving to UNRAID, I backed up my data in Ubuntu to the external USB 3 drives (I use the ORICO SATA 3.0 HDD Docking Station). Transfer speeds for large files were around 220 MB/s on EXT4 format. Now, I am mounting the same drives with the same external dock and I am getting around 32 MB/s... I saw some people in the forum saying "that's normal, overhead, array, etc.", however my array is essentially "RAID0", no parity disk. Q1: why is this? Is this a caching issue? My thought would have been that using the SSD cache would speed up things. Am I wrong? Q2: how can I restore my data at 200 MB/s to avoid spending weeks? Thanks! Edited April 25, 2020 by theunraidhomeuser Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 If there's no parity the problem is likely with the USB enclosure, it might not be linked at USB 3.0, test transferring from your desktop to the array. Quote Link to comment
theunraidhomeuser Posted April 25, 2020 Author Share Posted April 25, 2020 Hi Johnnie, it's the same enclosure, port and physical machine I used under Ubuntu. Literally nothing changed other than the speed. From the desktop to the array would mean over the network, and that of course will be a lot slower..? don't quite understand that? Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 9 minutes ago, theunraidhomeuser said: From the desktop to the array would mean over the network, and that of course will be a lot slower..? Why would it be slower? Are using 100Mbit or Wifi? Quote Link to comment
theunraidhomeuser Posted April 25, 2020 Author Share Posted April 25, 2020 because (per my original post), I am discussing and USB 3.0 connection straight to the UNRAID machine, nothing to do with the network.. Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 Testing the speed using the network would rule out an enclosure issue, or confirm an array problem, either way it would be an easy thing to do. Quote Link to comment
theunraidhomeuser Posted April 25, 2020 Author Share Posted April 25, 2020 Sorry if I'm being thick, maybe I have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you are trying to say. My challenge: [USB 3.0 HARD DRIVE ]-----usb 3.0 cable-----[UNRAID SERVER] You are proposing: [Desktop]----1Gbit Ethernet----[UNRAID SERVER] Correct? How does one relate to the other? I am talking about previous speed of 220 Megabytes per second, not MBit/s... Network transfer between my Desktop and the UNRAID PC is "normal" as would be expected on a 1GBit network.. Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 1 minute ago, theunraidhomeuser said: How does one relate to the other? Gigabit network transfer should give you around 110MB/s, if you get that it points to an enclosure issue, if you get the same 30MB/s it's likely an array issue, it gives us an idea where to start looking for the problem. Quote Link to comment
theunraidhomeuser Posted April 25, 2020 Author Share Posted April 25, 2020 (edited) oh man... I think I found out what the issue was... my RSYNC was using compression to restore.... That brought the speed down so much... without the -z flag, it's now as fast as it should be!!! Thanks for your help and support, I'll mark this as resolved! Edited April 25, 2020 by theunraidhomeuser Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 So the enclosure is likely the problem. Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 It can also be the rsync command, e.g. if it's using compression, but that's unlikely assuming you're using the same as before. Quote Link to comment
theunraidhomeuser Posted April 25, 2020 Author Share Posted April 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, johnnie.black said: It can also be the rsync command, e.g. if it's using compression, but that's unlike assuming you're using the same as before. you were spot on.... I changed the RSYNC command (went by memory that was my mistake) Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted April 25, 2020 Share Posted April 25, 2020 Good you found the issue, if you don't mind I'm going to tag it solve. Edit: I see you already did it. 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.