Can you do a crash test for me?

No one can do a simple stress test for me?
It is important to discover if many people have this problem.

Thanks again,
Mario

It seemed like there's not a lot of people here are using perf. Have you tried the test on 6.2.0?

When you create a new share on 6.2 leave bitrot protection and snapshots/protection disabled.

Also can you try disabling NFSv4 if you have that enabled?

mdgm wrote:
When you create a new share on 6.2 leave bitrot protection and snapshots/protection disabled. Also can you try disabling NFSv4 if you have that enabled?

Sorry but:

1) I bought a Readynas just for bitrot and snapshots
2) I received orrible official technical support. I am ready to throw the Netgear in the trashcan. I have already bought a Synology but it has also problems with nfs. I begin to think that nfs is not tested because these nas are sold only for a light windows usage with samba protocol.

So now I need to discover if my unit is faulty or if there is a general bug in nfs.
I suppose it very important also for community to know if an nfs stress test can kill a Readynas, am I right?

So if someone would like to do it and give me the results I will appreciate it a lot.

Thanks,
Mario

1. This test with a new share with bitrot protection and snapshots disabled will help to isolate the cause of your problem. You could also see if enabling async on the share helps: http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/14765/~/how-do-disable-nfs-sync-mode-in-readynas-os-6,-to-improve-nfs-performance
2) NFS is tested, but you may be putting too much load on the system. What is the NFS thread count?

Are you able to send me your logs (see the Sending Logs link in my sig)? Perhaps your logs will give me some clues as to what is going on on your system.

HI have done several tests and I suppose I have isolated the problem:

1) create an nfs share with snapshots, bitrot and compression (just to be sure): crash always
2) create an nfs share with nothing and THEN ADD snapshots then bitrot then compression (the order may change) : no crash bonnie benchmark completed

Please note that for "crash" I do not mean "is very slow" but I mean: no response from gui or telnet or power button so I need to detach power cord.

I will do it now and then I send logs to you but then you must not reply "software problems are not covered by warranty".

Your disks are not on the compatibility list: http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/20641

Each of them have a small number of command timeouts.

You really shouldn't be using snapshots etc. on all of your shares, but rather only on the shares for which you need those features.

mdgm wrote:
Your disks are not on the compatibility list: http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/20641 Each of them have a small number of command timeouts. You really shouldn't be using snapshots etc. on all of your shares, but rather only on the shares for which you need those features.

I had wd drives before but I have exchanged them with ones in the synology nas. I had the same problem.
In my post I was very clear in the steps to reproduce the bug: if I create a share with all features then it hangs. If I create a share and then add features it does not hang.
And I need snapshots for all my nfs shares.

You sound like a reasonably sophisticated user with significant nas requirements, so I'm wondering why you chose the 102 rather than the 312? I think you certainly would have received that advice here, pre-purchase.
I suppose it's too late for you to exchange the product?

vandermerwe wrote:
You sound like a reasonably sophisticated user with significant nas requirements, so I'm wondering why you chose the 102 rather than the 312? I think you certainly would have received that advice here, pre-purchase. I suppose it's too late for you to exchange the product?

mgiammarco purchased the NAS almost a year ago.

I do agree for his requirements a 312 would have been a better choice.

I wonder if lowering the NFS thread count would help with this problem on the 102.

It's possible there could be a lot of fragmentation on the NAS. Diagnosing the problem further would probably require remote access to the NAS, but it still looks to me that too much load is being put on the 102 through inappropriate use of some features.