Post your performance results

Hey guys,

Last week I installed Windows Server 2003 as my main workstation OS on the same computer I used for testing in post #1. I had also doubled the transmit/receive buffers on the onboard Intel Gigabit NIC since it said I may get better performance. To do that I went to the NIC properties -> Advanced -> Performance Options -> Doubled the Transmit/Receive Descriptors.

Today I copied a 3 gig file from another computer with identical hardware and I was getting a network usage of 40% of my 1 gigabit connection... that's almost 400 megabits! Before going the switch to Server 2003 and doubling the buffers I would never get above 25-29%, which is around 29 mbps (the results I had on my first speed test). So I decided to try a speed test on my ReadyNAS NV again... It started off reading at 40 mbps but it leveled off to what was in my 1st post (29ish mbps).

I'm wondering if there would be any difference if I increased the memory in my ReadyNAS. I guess I was also wondering, would it be possible to increase any kind of buffer on the unit itself that may lead to better network transfers? It looks like by increasing the NIC buffers on my workstation I get better transfer speeds, but only from another Windows computer.

michelkenny wrote:

Hey guys, Last week I installed Windows Server 2003 as my main workstation OS on the same computer I used for testing in post #1. I had also doubled the transmit/receive buffers on the onboard Intel Gigabit NIC since it said I may get better performance. To do that I went to the NIC properties -> Advanced -> Performance Options -> Doubled the Transmit/Receive Descriptors. Today I copied a 3 gig file from another computer with identical hardware and I was getting a network usage of 40% of my 1 gigabit connection... that's almost 40 megabits! Before going the switch to Server 2003 and doubling the buffers I would never get above 25-29%, which is around 29 mbps (the results I had on my first speed test). So I decided to try a speed test on my ReadyNAS NV again... It started off reading at 40 mbps but it leveled off to what was in my 1st post (29ish mbps). I'm wondering if there would be any difference if I increased the memory in my ReadyNAS. I guess I was also wondering, would it be possible to increase any kind of buffer on the unit itself that may lead to better network transfers? It looks like by increasing the NIC buffers on my workstation I get better transfer speeds, but only from another Windows computer.

You'll get a 12% boost by increasing memory on the ReadyNAS to 1GB. If you have further question, please open a new topic, and we can take it off this sticky.

(Click For Larger Picture)

Client System: P4 2.0Ghz, 2GB RAM, Gb LAN (direct connection to X6), Windows XP Pro, SMB Mount to X6

X6 Array Setup: "Enable Disk Write Cache", "Disable Full Data Journaling", and "Enable Fast CIFS Writes", UPS Connected

IOMeter Setup: As specified by Infrant

XRAID without Jumbo Frames: Write - 43.952064MBps, Read - 43.885146MBps

XRAID with Jumbo Frames: Write - 35.096848MBps, Read - 36.381126MBps

RAID5 without Jumbo Frames: Write - 46.887815MBps, Read - 41.450465MBps

RAID5 with Jumbo Frames: Write - 51.639043MBps, Read - 43.862759MBps

First battery of tests were with 1GB file, second battery with 2GB file. Results were near identical.

Third battery of tests were with 256MB RAM in X6, fourth battery with 1GB RAM in X6. Results were near identical.

Still trying to get Linux IOMeter working.

Tony - that's odd that your RAID-5 read/write results are better with Jumbo, but your X-RAID results are worse with Jumbo. Something freaky is going on!

My suggestion: for each unit you test, create four separate, very large (e.g. 5GB or so) test files, then reboot both the ReadyNAS and your machine to clear any data caching that may occur. Then run the fours tests again.

-brendan

Man, I wish I could get those stats... :)

RAID5 with Jumbo Frames: Write - 51.639043MBps, Read - 43.862759MBps

Can someone assist me with running iometer or provide an alternate icf file? I've downloaded the one according to the guide, however I get no read speeds displayed when I run the test?

Here is the results csv file...

http://upload2.net/page/download/csOTQ3 ... s.zip.html

Ender wrote:
Can someone assist me with running iometer or provide an alternate icf file? I've downloaded the one according to the guide, however I get no read speeds displayed when I run the test? Here is the results csv file... http://upload2.net/page/download/csOTQ3 ... s.zip.html

Please create a new post.

jching wrote:

Helevitia wrote: The NV is definitely the bottleneck here. But if you compare the NV to the competition, you will see that not many are faster(plus these support forums are worlds better than the competition which is why I bought an NV). In time, as NAS devices become more popular, speed will become a bigger factor, but for now it's not to most people. If you're refering to Buffalo or similar, than yes. I agree. But how about FC RAIDs, like Medea, Infortrend, Xyratec. Granted, these are fiber channel, so they get 280+MB/s with 6 disks. This is about 50MB/s per SATA drive. Which is what I would expect from a SATA RAID system. But even if we're limited to gigabit Ethernet, I'd expect greater than 30MB/s. So why is the Buffalo/NV/Thecus/etc so slow in comparison? Why aren't they getting similar performance from the SATA drives? Exactly what in the NV is the bottle neck? Is the RAID operations done in software? Is the parity done by the CPU? Aside from the fiber channel vs. gigabit ethernet, what is different between the Medea/Infortrend vs. Infrant/Buffalo? --jc

Fibre Channel RAID is controlled by the host bus adapter of the machine to which it is attached. This is a SAN (storage area network) which is completely different to a NAS (network attached storage). Because the disks in the NAS are controlled by the NAS (a computer itself), there is an extra overhead in communicating with this separate computer, caused by a) ethernet latency; b) cross server latency; c) inter-process latency, all of which delay the NAS from responding that it has written each packet of data.

If you really want performance, even SANs don't hack it -- the maximum throughput for a single HP fibre channel host bus adapter is currently 4Gbps (that's gigaBITS with a small 'b', i.e. 512MBs). However most of the SANs out there only support 2Gbps. Compare that with a four channel HP 6404 raid controller which has 4 x 320MBs (that's megaBYTES with a large 'B') = 1280MB = 10240Gbps. Quite a difference. Of course you'd need a server with PCI-X slots or the like and enough disks to soak up that much IO, but that's what's possible

Here's my two penn'orth :

System : AMD 3200+; 2GB RAM; Seagate ATA ST3160812A
NAS : 256MB RAM; 4x Seagate ST3250620NS in XRaid

Direct LAN connection, Gigabit NIC and Gigabit Switch

Write IOPS : 26.538 MBPS : 6.635
Read IOPS : 50.146 MBPS : 12.975

Direct LAN connection, Gigabit NIC and Gigabit Switch + JUMBO FRAMES

Write IOPS : 29.672 MBPS : 7.418
Read IOPS : 45.002 MBPS : 11.251

Wireless Connection 802.11g USR 5450 - USR 5450 (Bridge Mode) (Replacing 20m of Cable with Wireless Link)

Write IOPS : 6.171 MBPS : 1.543
Read IOPS : 4.904 MBPS : 1.226

If the NAS was quiet, then I could use cable !!! :(

Next week I'll replace the USR 5450s with USR 5461s. Lets hope for 2x :)

UPDATE

Results improved with better power cable management and changing Wireless Channel from 8 to 13 :

Write IOPS : 9.134 MBPS : 2.283
Read IOPS : 8.679 MBPS : 2.170

I tested using three computers, all on a 100mbit network. The two Win2k3's are on the same VLan, the WinXP is connected through a switch. This is all with jumbo frames enabled.

Win2k3 #1

IOmeter
Read IOps: 31.5 Mbps: 7.9
Write IOps: 31.5 Mbps: 7.8

FTP
Read Mbps: 0.79
Write Mbps: 5.9

Win2k3 #2

IOmeter
Read IOps: 31.15 Mbps: 7.8
Write IOps: 31.10 Mbps: 7.6

FTP
Read Mbps: 0.4
Write Mbps: 6.45

WinXP

IOmeter
Read IOps: 51.7 Mbps: 12.9
Write IOps: 57.9 Mbps: 14.5

FTP
(had some connection issues, never got a chance to test)

The FTP reads are still unbelievably slow, but at least windows file sharing is respectable for a 100mbit network.