I now have three GS608 v3 (gigabit and 9000 jumbo support) that seems to do the job well - is there better alternatives that will handle jumboframes better and give faster transfers ? (Before I had FS608 v3 (100mbit) switches that were maxed out during NAS to NAS transfers)Any suggestions ? and preferrably unmanaged switches - already using far too much time adjusting and fine tuning thingys in my house !TIA

I am thinking there is no need to replace the GS108s unless you are seeing some evidence that something needs fixing.What speeds are you getting now? Are the switches co-located?

StephenB wrote:I am thinking there is no need to replace the GS108s unless you are seeing some evidence that something needs fixing.What speeds are you getting now? Are the switches co-located?This is transfer to/from local PC with 6x SSD's (560/535MB/s read/write spec. Corsairs) on Areca 1680IX in raid0 and Intel Pro/1000CT - not very satisfied with the "hacky" upload

It seems unlikely that a switch would behave differently in the upload vs download. All transfers through the switch look pretty much the same (and involve both an upload link and a download link).Can you bypass the switches and directly connect the two PCs? (manually configuring the IP addresses). That would let you know if the switches and cabling are to blame.If they are, I'd look at the cabling first, I'd also try different switch ports.BTW, what performance are you getting with jumbo frames off?

StephenB wrote:It seems unlikely that a switch would behave differently in the upload vs download. All transfers through the switch look pretty much the same (and involve both an upload link and a download link).Can you bypass the switches and directly connect the two PCs? (manually configuring the IP addresses). That would let you know if the switches and cabling are to blame.If they are, I'd look at the cabling first, I'd also try different switch ports.BTW, what performance are you getting with jumbo frames off?I will of course get higher transfer rates with direct NAS -> PC transfer !The whole house are using high quality cat7 ethernet cables - turning off jumboframes in my pc gives severerly lower transferrate with big files - but almost no difference in transfer of small files ?My "concern" is of course the variable speed in upload - and I can't think of anything else than that it must be the switch/es that causes itMy main computer and the nas are on the same switch - just copying files of different sizes (nas - pc - nas) with a horrible low speed at merely 20MbpsThe other NAS is a another brand with specifications way over netgear readynas ultra6 (and it is putting out much more performance too here home) - and cost's almost twice as much - so I am not complaining on the ultra6 !EDIT; I think I'll order a Intel Pro/1000MT Dual Port Adapter and connect this pc and the nas directly since the Ultra6 have two nics - that should do it ?

NilsG wrote:I will of course get higher transfer rates with direct NAS -> PC transfer !You may be right, though it is not obvious. Even smaller switches are often capable of wire-speed performance - in which case the switch will not degrade performance at all.NilsG wrote:The whole house are using high quality cat7 ethernet cablesI believe that "cat 7" is not official. You might have class F or class FA (spec'd for 10 gig ethernet). Maintaining this performance also requires care in wiring up the connectors in the faceplates, and of course any patch cables. So even if the cable itself is good, you might still have end-to-end issues. Does the NAS report any packet loss? (TCP retransmissions, etc).NilsG wrote:turning off jumboframes in my pc gives severerly lower transferrate with big files - but almost no difference in transfer of small files ?That is believable. Jumbo frames generally help because they reduce the interupts per second processing load on the PC. They actually don't improve the network itself. Often the advanced settings on the NIC can be used to improve the non-Jumbo frame performance.BTW, small file transfers often end up bottlenecked on the NAS. Sequential read/writes are quite fast (writes generally slower with RAID-5 or Raid-6, since the parity blocks also need to be re-written). Copying lots of small files (or updating databases) creates more seeking on the NAS drives, which will slow them down. This is one reason why enterprise storage systems are spec'd in IOs per second, and not MB/s,NilsG wrote:My "concern" is of course the variable speed in upload - and I can't think of anything else than that it must be the switch/es that causes itMy main computer and the nas are on the same switch - just copying files of different sizes (nas - pc - nas) with a horrible low speed at merely 20MbpsTrying a direct connect might confirm (or refute) this theory. Note that most good switches maintain full bandwidth between the ports (e.g, an 8 port gigabit switch would have a 16 gigabit internal bandwidth so it wouldn't slow down when multiple links are active). The connections between your GS108s are of course limited to 1 gbit. So if the switches are co-located you can get higher overall throughput if you consolidate them with a bigger switch. This only matters if you have multiple users loading the links between the switches.NilsG wrote:EDIT; I think I'll order a Intel Pro/1000MT Dual Port Adapter and connect this pc and the nas directly since the Ultra6 have two nics - that should do it ?Just connecting two ethernet cables won't help, unless you also can set up teaming. That requires a managed switch. If you are thinking about dual-homing, then that requires some special care on the network configuration. I strongly recommend that you at least test direct-connect before simply throwing more hardware at the problem.

Which gigabit netgear switch is best for jumboframes ?

17 Replies

Replies have been turned off for this discussion

NilsG
Aspirant
Aug 08, 2013
Just wonder - can slower reads vs writes be due to the nature of x-raid2 ? and not to forget the disks - spinning disks are slower on writes

EDIT_ IS my ultra6 slow ? or is this speed what I can expect in a enviroment like mine ?

StephenB

Guru - Experienced User

Aug 08, 2013

NilsG wrote:
Just wonder - can slower reads vs writes be due to the nature of x-raid2 ? and not to forget the disks - spinning disks are slower on writes

EDIT_ IS my ultra6 slow ? or is this speed what I can expect ?

NilsG wrote:
Just wonder - can slower reads vs writes be due to the nature of x-raid2 ? and not to forget the disks - spinning disks are slower on writes EDIT_ IS my ultra6 slow ? or is this speed what I can expect ?

Writes to a Raid array require more I/O (which slows things down) but can be queued (which can speed things up).

Do you test with the settings I suggested (disk caching on, and journaling disabled)?

NilsG
Aspirant
Aug 18, 2013
StephenB wrote:
NilsG wrote:

Do you test with the settings I suggested (disk caching on, and journaling disabled)?

Yes Sir - am I slow ?
StephenB
Guru - Experienced User
Aug 18, 2013
The 850 down seems about right, the 520 up seems a bit slow. Not horrible performance, but I'd expect something a bit faster. Are you perhaps using dual-redundancy?
Jenac
Tutor
Aug 22, 2013
I have a new 516. For me both 1500 and 9000 MTU basically fills gigabit network (125 MBYTE per sec). Oddly enough enabling Gigabit gives med lots of errors so I run with 1500. Switches are two GS108Tv2. I'm going to try teaming once I get a new GS116E (out of ports right now). Anyone else since problems with Gigabit and lots of errors?
NilsG
Aspirant
Sep 11, 2013
Sorry for late reply ; no I am not using dual redundancy. As I am writing this I am starting to replace 3 of the WD30EFRX drives with WD40EFRX.

I did a factory reset with three of the WD30EFRX removed (three in) - and it' s now at the end of restriping disk #3 atm
All three WD40EFRX are checked with WD's Data Lifeguard Diagnostic and found ok.

Configuration: RAID Level X-RAID2, 3 disks
Status: Restriping 97% complete, Time to finish 18.0 min, Speed 67.2 MB/sec

A failed WD30EFRX drive has been returned (got my money back) - and the two other WD30EFRX I don't use in Ultra6 anymore will go into my 2bay Qnap TurboNAS.

Will do a new speedtest when everyting is up running - somehow I don't expect a faster system with WD RED's vs. WD Green's
StephenB
Guru - Experienced User
Sep 11, 2013
Sounds like all your drives are Reds, so I am puzzled by the last comment.

However, I agree that speed should be pretty similar between the Red models and the Green models. The technical advantages are more about being RAID-friendly (vibration control, tler, etc), and of course there is the 3x warranty period.

Forum Discussion

Which gigabit netgear switch is best for jumboframes ?

17 Replies

Related Content

CM3000 and Xfinity Gigabit x2

R7000 not doing gigabit ethernet speeds

Nighthawk r8000 with gigabit internet

Max speed with gigabit fiber

Gigabit internet shows up as 400Mbps

NETGEAR Academy

ProSupport for Business