Why am I only get 22.1MB/s transfer speed? (FreeNAS + HP Microserver)

Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by -Sk3tChY-, Sep 7, 2011.

  1. -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,946
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    Recently bought myself a HP ProLiant Microserver and am just experimenting a little bit with FreeNAS.

    I've got FreeNAS running off a USB drive plugged internally into the motherboard and have 4x2TB Seagate Greens in a RAID-Z setup.

    I'm transferring the data from a single 2TB Seagate Green, which is in the Secondary rig in my sig. (1GbE)

    The Microserver is standard. (Also has 1GbE)

    Anyway, I've tried transferring some stuff over across the network and am only getting about 22MB/s, which is pretty hopeless.

    I know that a single 2TB Seagate green can transfer much higher than that.

    Any ideas?

    The system also seemed to crash with the big transfer. Cancelled and rebooted and just tried transferring over about 25GB worth of data, here's a screen shot of the graphs:

    [​IMG]

    CPU looks to be capping out at 50%
    RAM is getting close to 100% in some parts, but still seems reasonable? Could it be that it only has 1GB RAM? Supposedly with ZFS it's recommended you have at least 4GB, even 6GB for it to run well.
    LAN looks to be where the bottleneck is, it's only peaking at around 300Mbit RX? :confused:

    Uploading from the box was an improvement with a transfer of around 70-85MB/s, but that's still a far cry from what it should be. Graphs even show it peaked at around 600Mbit (screenie only shows 500Mbit). I can understand there may be some overhead, but shouldn't I still be expecting about 100MB/s upload from the box with GbE? :confused:

    Could it be drivers or something? I've got limited experience with *nix, not sure if I need to manually install an appropriate LAN driver?
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2011
  2. SaTaN

    SaTaN Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,790
    Location:
    Caulfield-ish
    My first guess what that, but then how does ZFS cope with only 1GB ram? make a tmpfs of about 500MB and then see what that does to your transfer speeds (on the microserver).
     
  3. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,946
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    A single Seagate Green is definitely capable of reading quicker than 22MB/s.

    I left the microserver idling overnight and noticed that at idle a hell of a lot of RAM is being used up:

    [​IMG]

    There's still about 80MB free, but what on earth does "Wired" mean? That seems to be using up like 662MB all the time! :confused:

    How would I go about creating a tmpfs?

    My understanding is this is basically like a RAM Disk, in that it would be purely stored in RAM, rather than HDD.
     
  4. SaTaN

    SaTaN Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,790
    Location:
    Caulfield-ish
    the *nix world reports RAM differently to what you might be used to. I'm not exactly sure how bsd does it but I'm guessing wired means allocated but most of that is disk cache. The "active" value is what is really important.

    That said, ZFS is a RAM hog and you want as much of it as you can in RAM.

    again, not sure about bsd but presumably something like "# mount -t tmpfs -o size=512000 /tmp" will up half your ram which should kill ZFS performance.

    If that doesnt change anything then it is the source that is the issue....

    (or im too tired and should be ignored!)
     
  5. Annihilator69

    Annihilator69 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,036
    Location:
    Perth
    Wouldn't the CPU being at 50% mean it's maxed out?

    The second CPU will either be HT or a real core ( can't remember ) but it doesn't matter as I'm pretty sure that file transfer process will be single threaded.
    I don't know much about RAID-Z but it sounds like it's definatly be needing some CPU processing power to do, since there is no "hardware RAID-Z" card.
     
  6. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,946
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    Didn't think about that, I'm not entirely sure how those graphs are measured. I guess in theory if just 1 core is working flat-out it would be at 50%, but theoretically be maxed out.

    I've read about people using the Microservers with FreeNAS+ZFS though, so I don't think it's the CPU.

    I've started reading a little bit and found a few posts on whirlpool:

    Unfortunately he never tried ZFS with the 1GB RAM, but he says he's getting 70-105MB/s from PC to NAS with 8GB of RAM.

    This guy is actually using an identical setup to me, same Seagate greens but he says he's only getting 12MB/s writes! :shock:

    Actually, here's the thread. I read on and it looks like I should try experimenting with different sized sectors?

    The second bloke even seems to have the exact same setup as me, 4x2TB Seagate greens. I guess that would point to it being RAM, other than that I think his setup is identical to mine.
     
  7. callan

    callan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    Messages:
    4,770
    Location:
    melbourne
    Your hard disk wouldn't be Advanced format, (4K sectors) by any chance???
    If it is, and the partition is not aligned, you'll get WOEFUL performance.

    I notice that CPU graph goes to %200 or beyond. I suspect that it's actually charting "Run QUEUE depth" (expressed in percentage, which is a bit odd) - rather than pure CPU load - in which case, interpreting it could be a bit more complicated.

    I also suspect 1Gb RAM is not enough..

    Ooroo
    Callan
     
  8. mediaforensics

    mediaforensics New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    Location:
    Perth WA
    I'm confused about whether you are talking GigaBits or GigaBytes and I suspect you are mixing them in your calculations
    Your transfer rate may be 8 x better, or 8 times worse, than you think.
     
  9. Gierke

    Gierke Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,071
    Location:
    Earth
    I have a microserver running Ubunutu with 5x3tb in RAID5. The array can push 300MB/s but I have only been getting 30-35MB/s via samba to my Win7 desktop and only about 50MB/s via ftp. My problems were solved by putting an Intel nic in my microserver - now pushing 108MB/s both directions to the array via samba and ftp.

    Could be something similar in your situation - poor support for broadcom nics in the nix world??
     
  10. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,946
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    I believe they are, but Seagate claim their SmartAlign techonlogy prevents misalignments from occurring.

    Not entirely sure if that's for the data within the partitions only, or also the partitions themselves.

    Not sure exactly what Run QUEUE depth would be referring too.

    FreeNAS recommend 6GB+ for FreeNAS 8 with ZFS, so RAM probably has something to do with it.

    Nah mate, I'm well aware of the difference between Gigabit and Gigabyte.

    I'm saying I have a Gigabit connection throughout connection, so theoretically I should be able to achieve maximum 125 Megabytes a second transfer speed.

    I've gathered there's going to be some network overhead etc, but my expectations were to hopefully get about 100 Megabytes a second read/write.

    How are you getting 300MB/s over Gigabit? Isn't it's max throughput only 125MB/s? :confused:

    Well other people seem to be getting better speeds. Anyway I'm getting rid of FeeNAS and setting up Ubuntu, hopefully I'll see some speed improvements.
     
  11. Gierke

    Gierke Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,071
    Location:
    Earth
    I'm not getting that over gigabit - I'm getting that with a benchmark, hdparm -Tt on the box itself
     
  12. [SweN]

    [SweN] Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Messages:
    2,486
    thats basically the speed you would be getting through the USB 2.0 protocol....
     
  13. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,946
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    Oh, right right. Thought you were getting that over the network.

    I'm hopefully going to be seeing a mate this weekend who's a Linux genius, he's going to help me setup Ubuntu Server on the box now. I'll let you guys know how transfer speeds go once I get things up and running.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2011
  14. Gierke

    Gierke Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,071
    Location:
    Earth
    Interesting point :lol:
     
  15. garnet

    garnet Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    355
    Location:
    3020
    my microserver was stuck on 25MB/s a few time too.... did it this morning aswell
    running windows 7 home premium
     
  16. Mudg3

    Mudg3 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    476
    Location:
    Brisbane
    any update on this? I seem to be getting similar results currently.
     
  17. davros123

    davros123 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,930
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
  18. OP
    OP
    -Sk3tChY-

    -Sk3tChY- Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,946
    Location:
    NSW, In a house.
    I ended up throwing Ubuntu Server on the machine.

    Haven't had a chance to test read/write speeds properly yet, largely because I basically know nothing about linux, so it's taking time. :p

    A straight copy using Win 7 to a SAMBA share on the Linux box was around 35MB/s, which is still a lot slower than I was hoping.

    I'll be fiddling around with it soon hopefully, I'll keep you guys posted.
     
  19. Mudg3

    Mudg3 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    476
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I've just installed Server2008 R2 on the machine and I'm getting 90mbs over gigbit.

    So im beginning to think its something to do with drivers used.
     
  20. vien

    vien Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    202
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    i had the same problem when i was running freenas + microserver + 8gig ram. I was getting about 12-20MB/s, which was pathetic. Happened in both freenas7 and 8, installed several times. Compound it with bugs in the setup and config, settings not saving, bugs in the UI, and dodgey permissions with windows sharing, wasnt worth all the hassle for ZFS. In the end i ditched it and i'm running homer server 2011 now, no more headaches, simple setup and it just works, avg 80-100MB/s transfers.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: