I am echoing a "closed thread" which can be found here: https://community.netgear.com/t5/Current-NETGEAR-and-Partners/Antivirus-App-in-ReadyNAS/m-p/1057480#M4625 I have religiously had Anti Virus on, and have been having consistent and horrid performance problems. Out of desperation tonight, I toggled it OFF and BOOM!!!! Rsync throughput of 15MB/s on three threads, instead of 50kB/s on one thread. It appears that the Anti Virus STRANGLES the RN, even under the most recent firmware. When can a solution be provided?

The issue in your closed thread was resolved. It's possible there was a regression, it would be useful if other folks would try and test what you are seeing. What ReadyNAS model do you have?

I have an RN10200, pruchased in May, 2016. I have checked and it's running the latest of firmware and virus defintions. Ever since May, I've been "concerend" about the low performance, and that was runing an earlier firmware, so if this is a regression it's been latent for some time now.

WildfireTech wrote: Ever since May, I've been "concerend" about the low performance, and that was runing an earlier firmware, so if this is a regression it's been latent for some time now. The AV problem on your closed thread was very real, but was fixed in 6.5.0. Clearly you do have a problem, and clearly AV makes some difference. But even with AV off, your performance numbers are low. Generally I benchmark with NAStester (http://www.808.dk/?code-csharp-nas-performance) There are my results with my RN102 with AV off: Running warmup...Running a 400MB file write on \\10.0.0.13\Archive 5 times...Iteration 1: 79.22 MB/secIteration 2: 82.25 MB/secIteration 3: 74.80 MB/secIteration 4: 75.57 MB/secIteration 5: 60.94 MB/sec-----------------------------Average (W): 74.56 MB/sec-----------------------------Running a 400MB file read on \\10.0.0.13\Archive 5 times...Iteration 1: 81.73 MB/secIteration 2: 70.82 MB/secIteration 3: 77.51 MB/secIteration 4: 80.91 MB/secIteration 5: 79.54 MB/sec-----------------------------Average (R): 78.10 MB/sec----------------------------- With AV on: Running a 400MB file write on \\10.0.0.13\Archive 5 times...Iteration 1: 76.56 MB/secIteration 2: 78.67 MB/secIteration 3: 76.48 MB/secIteration 4: 73.85 MB/secIteration 5: 79.04 MB/sec-----------------------------Average (W): 76.92 MB/sec-----------------------------Running a 400MB file read on \\10.0.0.13\Archive 5 times...Iteration 1: 84.29 MB/secIteration 2: 82.62 MB/secIteration 3: 84.96 MB/secIteration 4: 83.51 MB/secIteration 5: 79.43 MB/sec-----------------------------Average (R): 82.96 MB/sec----------------------------- The test system is a windows 10 desktop with an SSD harddrive. Both the RN102 and desktop are connected to a Netgear GS724T gigabit switch, and the MTU is set to 1500 on both systems (that is, jumbo frames are off). Can you try the same benchmark on your system? Maybe also give us a bit more information on your network. Also, how full is your NAS volume? Have you checked the disk health (SMART info)?

First off, let me thank you for your terrific help and assistance in this matter. I run only OSX and Linux systems, so I could not use the testing tool you recommended, so I came up with my own battery of tests. RN102 Tests Network Configuration Mac Mini, Model Macmini5,1, OSX 10.121 GB Adapter Configured and ConfirmedApple Time Capsule, Model MB277LL/A, Firmware 7.6.7 (76700.5)1 GB Switch Configured and ConfirmedNAS, Model RN10200, Firmware 6.6.01 GB Adapter Configured and Confirmed MTU 1500 across all RN102 Configured with 1 4 TB Volume (2x4TB Hitachi Drives, RAID 1)Volume Broken across 6 sharesSnapshots enabled (schedule varying by volatility of share)1.83 TB free of 3.63 TB usableData1.23 TBSnapshots584.63 GB SMART Status on both disks checked, no errors reported Virus Scanner Update Status: Sat Oct 22 2016 14:24:39 System: Antivirus scanner definition file was updated to 201610221834. Mounted Share “Backups” via AFP under mount point://user@NAS%20%28AFP%29._afpovertcp._tcp.local/Backups Tested using openSUSE-13.2-DVD-x86_64.iso (4.68GB, 4,678,746,112 bytes on disk) Virus Scanner OFF Results UPLOAD1. 4678746112 100% 26.31MB/s 0:02:492. 4678746112 100% 29.13MB/s 0:02:333. 4678746112 100% 27.02MB/s 0:02:454. 4678746112 100% 23.43MB/s 0:03:10AVG 26.475 MB/s DOWNLOAD1. 4678746112 100% 40.19MB/s 0:01:512. 4678746112 100% 42.08MB/s 0:01:46 3. 4678746112 100% 42.82MB/s 0:01:44 4. 4678746112 100% 42.42MB/s 0:01:45 Avg 41.8775 MB/s Virus Scanner ON Results UPLOAD1. 4678746112 100% 27.50MB/s 0:02:42 2. 4678746112 100% 28.23MB/s 0:02:38 3. 4678746112 100% 28.31MB/s 0:02:37 4. 4678746112 100% 24.85MB/s 0:02:59Avg 27.2225 MB/s DOWNLOAD1. 4678746112 100% 39.10MB/s 0:01:542. 4678746112 100% 42.11MB/s 0:01:453. 4678746112 100% 42.44MB/s 0:01:454. 4678746112 100% 40.12MB/s 0:01:51Avg 49.9425 MB/s This is DEFINITELY NOT the behavior and throughput I saw earlier, so I did another set of tests after a restart of the RN to test a theory I had. I noted when the NAS started back up the disks were “being hammered” for about 4-5 minutes post start up, so I waited for that thrashing to stop before starting tests. Note: After the reboot, the virus definition file was updated:Sat Oct 22 2016 22:31:42 System: Antivirus scanner definition file was updated to 201610230221. Virus Scanner ON Results UPLOAD 1. 4678746112 100% 24.75MB/s 0:03:002. 4678746112 100% 24.88MB/s 0:02:59 3. 4678746112 100% 26.27MB/s 0:02:49 4. 4678746112 100% 24.61MB/s 0:03:01Avg 25.1275 MB/s Note: Speed in transfers varied from 30MB/s to 11MB/s as I watched progress, chaotically.Over the course of the three minute runs, this shows the variance of the RN throughput over a time period DOWNLOAD1. 4678746112 100% 41.06MB/s 0:01:48 2. 4678746112 100% 41.34MB/s 0:01:47 3. 4678746112 100% 40.03MB/s 0:01:51 4. 4678746112 100% 41.99MB/s 0:01:46 Avg 41.104 MB/s Note: Speed in transfers varied from 49MB/s to 29MB/s as I watched progress, chaotically.Over the course of the three minute runs, this shows the variance of the RN throughput over a time period Virus Scanner OFF Results UPLOAD1. 4678746112 100% 25.84MB/s 0:02:52 2. 4678746112 100% 27.73MB/s 0:02:40 3. 4678746112 100% 25.72MB/s 0:02:53 4. 4678746112 100% 26.13MB/s 0:02:50 Avg 26.355 MB/s Note: Speed in transfers varied from 28MB/s to 24MB/s While this is a variance, this is a “smaller gap” than observed when the scanner was active. DOWNLOAD1. 4678746112 100% 41.45MB/s 0:01:47 2. 4678746112 100% 41.89MB/s 0:01:46 3. 4678746112 100% 41.32MB/s 0:01:47 4. 4678746112 100% 41.63MB/s 0:01:47 Avg 41.5725 MB/s I also decided to run a few FTP tests, to see if the behavior was somehow isolated to the AFP sharing. FTPUPLOAD1. 4678746112 bytes sent in 02:24 (30.84 MiB/s)2. 4678746112 bytes sent in 03:09 (23.59 MiB/s)3. 4678746112 bytes sent in 03:44 (19.85 MiB/s)4. 4678746112 bytes sent in 03:31 (21.08 MiB/s)Avg 23.84 MiB/s DOWNLOAD1. 4678746112 bytes received in 01:43 (43.07 MiB/s)2. 4678746112 bytes received in 01:38 (45.22 MiB/s)3. 4678746112 bytes received in 01:41 (44.01 MiB/s)4. 4678746112 bytes received in 01:36 (46.47 MiB/s)Avg 44.6925 MiB/s A note of interest with respect to the FTP testing, I was watching the FTP rate of transfer, and saw it slowly decrease from a high starting value, decreasing by roughly .02 MB/s every 3-5 seconds over the duration of the transfers, until reaching the lowest throughput value in the last few seconds of the transfer. The final average speed of the transfer, as pasted above, is roughly the median of the transfer speed range. As an example, on the 4th trial the transfer speed at start was 48 MB/s and would down to 46.02 MB/s near the end, arriving at the average speed of 46,47 MiB/s This behavior was consistent on both download and upload tests. Intermediate Summary: Although I cannot reproduce the abhorrent behavior I saw earlier today with singular file transfers, I have satisfied myself that this unit was acting incredibly poorly under load when I was transferring 100+ GB to 1TB of data earlier, and that performance was significantly improved by disabling the virus scanning as reported earlier. During these tests, I have confirmed that after a restart the virus scanner enabled can impact performance as a roughly 300% throughput variance on a “idle” file type (not an EXE or ZIP that would actively incur the virus scanning) was seen only after restart before the virus scanner was disabled. Additionally, ever since I set this unit up in May, I have had the RN under load “lock up” AFP sharing, and need to be restarted to restore service. This affects all shares, and the RN exhibits this same behavior when shared over LAN or WiFi. I also note that I got much lower results than your SMB testing, and that the variance of up to down for me is almost a 62% delta, whereas for your testing is was roughly only a 5% variance. Conclusion: The above indicates to me that the ReadyNAS may not be the best choice for a “non Windows” environment, and the revelation that the “Virus Scanning bug” has potentially returned to the software as a regression speaks to the quality of development.

WildfireTech wrote: The above indicates to me that the ReadyNAS may not be the best choice for a “non Windows” environment, and the revelation that the “Virus Scanning bug” has potentially returned to the software as a regression speaks to the quality of development. There are others here who are using OSX, perhaps they can share some of their results. How full is your data volume? Did you try running the maintenance functions (scrub, balance, defrag)?

Virus Scanner under 6.6.0 kills performance

16 Replies

Replies have been turned off for this discussion

StephenB
Guru - Experienced User
Oct 23, 2016
The issue in your closed thread was resolved.

It's possible there was a regression, it would be useful if other folks would try and test what you are seeing.

What ReadyNAS model do you have?
- WildfireTech
  Guide
  Oct 23, 2016
  I have an RN10200, pruchased in May, 2016. I have checked and it's running the latest of firmware and virus defintions.
  
  Ever since May, I've been "concerend" about the low performance, and that was runing an earlier firmware, so if this is a regression it's been latent for some time now.
  - StephenB
    Guru - Experienced User
    Oct 23, 2016
    WildfireTech wrote:
    
    Ever since May, I've been "concerend" about the low performance, and that was runing an earlier firmware, so if this is a regression it's been latent for some time now.
    
    The AV problem on your closed thread was very real, but was fixed in 6.5.0.
    
    Clearly you do have a problem, and clearly AV makes some difference. But even with AV off, your performance numbers are low.
    
    Generally I benchmark with NAStester (http://www.808.dk/?code-csharp-nas-performance)
    
    There are my results with my RN102 with AV off:
    
    Running warmup...
    Running a 400MB file write on \\10.0.0.13\Archive 5 times...
    Iteration 1: 79.22 MB/sec
    Iteration 2: 82.25 MB/sec
    Iteration 3: 74.80 MB/sec
    Iteration 4: 75.57 MB/sec
    Iteration 5: 60.94 MB/sec
    -----------------------------
    Average (W): 74.56 MB/sec
    -----------------------------
    Running a 400MB file read on \\10.0.0.13\Archive 5 times...
    Iteration 1: 81.73 MB/sec
    Iteration 2: 70.82 MB/sec
    Iteration 3: 77.51 MB/sec
    Iteration 4: 80.91 MB/sec
    Iteration 5: 79.54 MB/sec
    -----------------------------
    Average (R): 78.10 MB/sec
    -----------------------------
    
    With AV on:
    
    Running a 400MB file write on \\10.0.0.13\Archive 5 times...
    Iteration 1: 76.56 MB/sec
    Iteration 2: 78.67 MB/sec
    Iteration 3: 76.48 MB/sec
    Iteration 4: 73.85 MB/sec
    Iteration 5: 79.04 MB/sec
    -----------------------------
    Average (W): 76.92 MB/sec
    -----------------------------
    Running a 400MB file read on \\10.0.0.13\Archive 5 times...
    Iteration 1: 84.29 MB/sec
    Iteration 2: 82.62 MB/sec
    Iteration 3: 84.96 MB/sec
    Iteration 4: 83.51 MB/sec
    Iteration 5: 79.43 MB/sec
    -----------------------------
    Average (R): 82.96 MB/sec
    -----------------------------
    
    The test system is a windows 10 desktop with an SSD harddrive. Both the RN102 and desktop are connected to a Netgear GS724T gigabit switch, and the MTU is set to 1500 on both systems (that is, jumbo frames are off).
    
    Can you try the same benchmark on your system? Maybe also give us a bit more information on your network.
    
    Also, how full is your NAS volume? Have you checked the disk health (SMART info)?

Forum Discussion

Virus Scanner under 6.6.0 kills performance

16 Replies

Related Content

Virus Scanner Missing

WAX214 - Connect Scanner Using WPS

Antivirus scanner definition file update failed

RN102 slow performances

ReadyNAS virus threat

NETGEAR Academy

ProSupport for Business