New Transmission add-on thread

I will try and see what happens!
Maybe it will put a lot of work on the cpu? I don´t really know how usb compared to sata works, as far as tranferspeeds the usb should be sufficient,I guess.

/Tinto

SATA will be faster than USB, but for the amount of data coming through from a BitTorrent client, this won't be an issue. The overall latency of the USB interface might be a bigger concern than the outright speed. You might want to disable write-caching or other items in the BitTorrent client that are agressive on the disk in terms of repeated access, YMMV.

You will be limited by the internet connection speed, and not the USB drive.

Now, that would depend on where you live, and what hookup is available to your region. I've got a 100/100 Mbit hookup, and for as far as i'm concerned it's never the drives, nor the interfaces that limit performance. The fact is the NAS has crappy throughput & CPU power. I have no idea what is more CPU intensive, USB or SATA, but the interfaces most likely put a load on the CPU, and for that reason only it might be worthwhile to play around a bit. I wish him good luck.
B!

Mr_B wrote:

Now, that would depend on where you live, and what hookup is available to your region. I've got a 100/100 Mbit hookup, and for as far as i'm concerned it's never the drives, nor the interfaces that limit performance. The fact is the NAS has crappy throughput & CPU power. I have no idea what is more CPU intensive, USB or SATA, but the interfaces most likely put a load on the CPU, and for that reason only it might be worthwhile to play around a bit. I wish him good luck. B!

100/100 service has a throughput ceiling of 25 MB/s (200 mbs total, half up/half down) I agree that might stress a USB drive. Also, most flash drives are slower than USB hard drives - I missed the flash drive part of the original post.

Tinto:
-how fast is your internet service (uplink and downlink)?
-If you limit the torrent bandwidth, what is the ceiling you use?
-Since you only mention seeding, do you actually care about maxing the performance?

I was more referring to the fact that the sparc's run out of CPU-steam far long before the transfer-speeds bottleneck. I did a lot of tweaking with the few settings available to us with Transmission 2.42, and i think my "best effort" were in the 6K KB/s range. Same hookup, same torrent, uTorrent & my PC as comparison, and i hit just shy of 12MB/s as i should. The transfers should be a none issue on the NAS. It might end up being about what amount of work the CPU has to do for the different interfaces.

B!

StephenB wrote:

Mr_B wrote: Now, that would depend on where you live, and what hookup is available to your region. I've got a 100/100 Mbit hookup, and for as far as i'm concerned it's never the drives, nor the interfaces that limit performance. The fact is the NAS has crappy throughput & CPU power. I have no idea what is more CPU intensive, USB or SATA, but the interfaces most likely put a load on the CPU, and for that reason only it might be worthwhile to play around a bit. I wish him good luck. B! 100/100 service has a throughput ceiling of 25 MB/s (200 mbs total, half up/half down) I agree that might stress a USB drive. Also, most flash drives are slower than USB hard drives - I missed the flash drive part of the original post. Tinto: -how fast is your internet service (uplink and downlink)? -If you limit the torrent bandwidth, what is the ceiling you use? -Since you only mention seeding, do you actually care about maxing the performance?

Hi!
I haven't been able to test the USB setup yet, one of my drives in the Duo failed so it's been offline since then. The good news is that instead of buying a replacement drive, I bought a new ReadyNAS Ultra. So now I will have some more power to play with, although I really liked my Duo. I'm just waiting for the drives to arrive...

To answer StephenB:
Internet service is 100 down/10 up
Bandwith limit (if I remeber correctly) 2Mbit down and 1Mbit up
Maxing performance is not my main goal, but a steady upstream would be nice. On the Duo it was very flaky, it went from maxing the cap down to 7Kb/s and up again, but that could just be the bittorrent protocol?

Gibxxi:
Can you tell me more about disabling write-cache and the other things? I had my cache-size-mb up pretty high, like 24.

Well I will start experimenting as soon as I get my new gear up running! :D

With 24MB cache, did you increase the amount of physical memory in your Duo, other-ways that might have been a issue...
Mine is at 20, currently, on a NV+, with 1GB RAM.

Most likely tho, it's your upload filling the bandwidth, not leaving room for ack's, making the transfer stop, and when it gets the ack's it starts sending again, over and over. Try setting a cap on up/down-load, leaving approximately a 12'th of the bandwidth unused. (In each direction.)
B!

No, just the 256 Mb it was shipped with.
I played around with the cache size before, started with 1 then 2,4,8 and so on. My feeling was that I got the best result on 24, but I didn't measure it in any scientific way.
I thought thet only active downloading torrents used the cache? Meaning with 2 simultanious download it uses 48Mb?

Is Transmission for the Intel ReadyNAS ever going to be updated to 2.77?