NFS Tunning? - some benchmarks

Dewdman42 wrote:

iSCSI, did pretty well, but specifically uncached 4k, was kind of poor, which makes sense by what you just said. But it did better then local for random access, which I can't explain unless the NAS cashing is superior to the cacheing on my local drive. It could also be that the benchmarking software is able to force the local drive into true random access and not able to do so as well for mounted file server volumes, not sure.

That's what it is. Your NAS is acting as a huge read/write memory cache. Your computer can't do anything about that.

Dewdman42 wrote:
iSCSI would be great, but its of little use for most real world situations to me. iSCSI would work great for a thin client workstation.

Yeah, the singular access eliminates most usage. No good for anything that would typically use "shares".

Dewdman42 wrote:
NFS I think would be fastest, if the random access of 4k sequential access could be improved some how.

This might be a situation where "less is more".

Among SSDs, it has been noted that firmware make a major difference in how a controller performs. Over the years several times SSDs have been tweaked for responsiveness in later firmware revisions - they do that by slowing them down.

On slow internet connections (lets say 5mbit DSL), you can make them more responsive by implementing QOS - throttling incoming and outgoing connections and then prioritizing certain ports/IPs/etc.; it makes your connection seem faster, even though you just dropped your usable bandwidth to 3-4mbit. Weird, right?

You said it feels faster - just tossing possible explanations out there.