NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
NFS Tunning? - some benchmarks
I ran some benchmarks to compare various modes of file sharing, and got some surprising results. My intution was that NFS would be the best option, but its performance was off (see below). So do...
The local drive 4k results are most accurate as far as HDD performance. HDDs can only seek to a file a hundred or so times per second, because it takes around 10ms each time. 552KB/sec / 4KB = 138 IOPS. (around 100) Sequentially is another story, but that's what you get with random access.
The other results are all higher because of caching - your NAS is acting as a huge read/write buffer. With 1GB of memory, about 800MB of that would be available to act as read/write cache, inflating the results for benchmarks with smaller datasets. In a truly random scenario with a large enough dataset, you would get less than the local drive benchmarks.
Sequential performance is lower for some protocols because of the protocol overhead. iSCSI is clearly the most efficient protocol, and CIFs is clearly the least efficient. I wouldn't worry about low 4K speeds - very little is 4K in size. Go with whatever feels snappiest - NFS may be doing a better job caching directory trees, at the expense of its file cache. CIFS is probably doing the opposite.
The other results are all higher because of caching - your NAS is acting as a huge read/write buffer. With 1GB of memory, about 800MB of that would be available to act as read/write cache, inflating the results for benchmarks with smaller datasets. In a truly random scenario with a large enough dataset, you would get less than the local drive benchmarks.
Sequential performance is lower for some protocols because of the protocol overhead. iSCSI is clearly the most efficient protocol, and CIFs is clearly the least efficient. I wouldn't worry about low 4K speeds - very little is 4K in size. Go with whatever feels snappiest - NFS may be doing a better job caching directory trees, at the expense of its file cache. CIFS is probably doing the opposite.
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!
