August 25, 20205 yr Hi, I currently have a 1TB NVME Cache Drive and a 1TB NVME Unassigned drive in one of my servers, I am thinking of creating a cache pool instead for redundancy and have been googling without much success to find out what would be the performance hit if I did that? Any experience or pointers would be greatly appreciated!
August 25, 20205 yr Community Expert Should be similar performance, though some users complain of bad performance with some devices in a pool, in that case latest beta should help due to the new partition alignment.
August 25, 20205 yr Author 3 minutes ago, johnnie.black said: Should be similar performance, though some users complain of bad performance with some devices in a pool, in that case latest beta should help due to the new partition alignment. Thank you, I will start shifting some data and give it a go!
August 26, 20205 yr Author 20 hours ago, johnnie.black said: Should be similar performance, though some users complain of bad performance with some devices in a pool, in that case latest beta should help due to the new partition alignment. I have 2 NVME Drives both capable of 3000 mb/s write speed Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB Sabrent 1TB Rocket NVMe PCIe 1TB I could write to both of those individually at 1000 mb/s using my fibre connection Together as a BTRFS cache pool I am only getting 230 mb/s Will installing the beta make a 770 mb/s difference?
August 26, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, mbc0 said: I have 2 NVME Drives both capable of 3000 mb/s write speed Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB Sabrent 1TB Rocket NVMe PCIe 1TB I could write to both of those individually at 1000 mb/s using my fibre connection Together as a BTRFS cache pool I am only getting 230 mb/s Will installing the beta make a 770 mb/s difference? Thats very weird, I have 2 intel 660p in a BTRFS cache pool in Raid 0 and i'm getting +-2.4 GB/s, what is the raid mode of the btrfs?, how are you testing the speeds?, you could try with the community apps "DiskSpeed", directly with dd command or even a VM to check you disk speed over the /mnt/cache.
August 26, 20205 yr Author Hi, They are BTRFS RAID1 for redundancy, I have tested both drives at 3000 mb/s with diskspeed The test is from my Desktop PC via my fibre connection (the reason I installed it) copying a 30GB file from my Desktop's NVME to the unraid cache I have had 1000 mb/s when writing to both these drives individually for 9-10 months I was just looking for some redundancy on my cache drive.
August 26, 20205 yr Community Expert 39 minutes ago, mbc0 said: Will installing the beta make a 770 mb/s difference? It might male a considerable difference, especially since Samsung devices appear to be one of the most affected by the alignment issue, also to test use the disk share, not an user share, that also introduces some overhead.
August 26, 20205 yr Author 10 minutes ago, johnnie.black said: It might male a considerable difference, especially since Samsung devices appear to be one of the most affected by the alignment issue, also to test use the disk share, not an user share, that also introduces some overhead. OK, I will give it a go, I have been testing the same way I have been and need to use my system from Windows, the Samsung 970 has been my cache drive for over a year with superb performance, I bought the Sabrent 9-10 months ago and have been using it seperately (unassigned device) with also superb performance but now no longer need the sabrent so thought I would add some redundancy. So based on the fact that I have been using the Samsung as a single cache drive without issue, changing to the beta should help with the fact that the cache is now a pool rather than single drive? just checking it is not a fix for the samsung as it works perfectly.
August 26, 20205 yr Community Expert 7 minutes ago, mbc0 said: just checking it is not a fix for the samsung as it works perfectly. Yes for some reason pools appear to be more susceptible to bad performance, there's a big thread about it, and a report that it helps.
August 27, 20205 yr Author @johnnie.black Just to update, I am now on the latest beta, removed both NVME Drives & Re-added formatting to MBR: 1MiB-aligned rebooted the server (just in case) but still only getting 230mb/s I will post this on the other thread you linked as it is obviously where it has all been discussed. Thanks
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.