NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Solved
Pro Pioneer - Poor performance X-RAID Raid-6 with 6x WD Red 3TB
For a really long time I thought the poor performance was due to the fact that I was running an old firmware and had never done a factory reset since 2009 (it was recommended in the past on the forum...
For future readers;
The performance impact boiled down to the following things:
- The RAID implementation currently works different in comparison to older versions of the NAS which has impact on performance, but delivers more reliability
- The implementation of NFS (and/or NFSv4) works different and by default works in a more reliable way. Using the "async" option will greatly improve the speed of transfers, but will greatly increase the risk of faulty transfers in case of power-failure and such
- Performance is (obviously) impacted when there are operations running (ie: (initial) (re)syncing of volumes, balancing, scrubbing, defragmentation, simultanious transfers, etc.)
I tested diskspeeds within my system to evaluate the performance impact. My conclusion for now is that in a RAID-5 or RAID-6 setup the set won't perform better than an individual disk (which was the case in older versions of ReadyNAS but seems to not be true anymore, probably due to the first point). When using the async option, the performance is equal to the individual disks. Note; I have *not* compared speeds using CIFS/Samba. I have tested one time and it seemed that the speeds were comparable to NFS with the async option turned on.
I don't think resync speed is very good measure of performance. Perhaps try Nastester ( http://www.808.dk/?code-csharp-nas-performance )
FWIW, parity blocks are evenly distributed across all the disks.
BTW how much memory do you have? The new systems all have quite a bit more than the stock amount in the legacy x86 NAS.
A lot's changed since you got your Pro.
We've done a number of firmware updates including things such as switching from using EXT3 to EXT4, we've added 4k sector partition alignment, GPT support, and tweaked different settings.
The RAID s at a lower level than the filesystem, but that would have undergone some updates too. We've altered the priority of different things as well which may affect the performance of the initial sync.
The WD RED disks are 5400 RPM and would have different performance to your old 1TB disks.
It's worth noting that the array is redundant throughout the initial sync after a factory reset.
I don't think the amount of memory would be a problem for this. If you think it is download the logs and see if any of the swap space is being used.
Thanks for the further explanation mdgm; I get that things changed, and therefore might affect resyncing. I also get that because it is a 5400 RPM disk it probably could (and would) perform less well than my initial Samsung Spinpoint 1TB (7200rpm).
However I find it hard to believe that when the disks individually performe well above 100 mb/sec, that a raid-5 setup would perform (way) worse than each individual disk. I find that a bit hard to believe :) as raid 5 (and 6) were generally considered to perform better. Not as good as a striping system, but better than mirrod setups and at least a bit faster than individual disks.
I still kind of suspect certain drives, but have no other (solid) evidence for them being faulty except that they sound a bit weird when in the NAS. I might try factory resetting again, and starting with 1 disk and gradually go up to multiple disks and see if I can pinpoint at which disk (if any) the problem arises.
In OS4 it was possible to totally re-initialize disks (so without initial sync). Is this possible in OS6 as well? Or do I always have to sync even when there was no data on the disks?
MaxxMark wrote:
In OS4 it was possible to totally re-initialize disks (so without initial sync). Is this possible in OS6 as well? Or do I always have to sync even when there was no data on the disks?
Even in OS4 you need to sync the full volume since RAID runs underneath the filesystem. Perhaps I am confused on what you mean???
If you are asking about setting up one volume per disk (jbod with no spanning), then the answer is that OS 6 lets you do this also. You can delete the volume you have now, and create new ones for each drive - so it is actually easier than OS 4.
StephenB wrote:Even in OS4 you need to sync the full volume since RAID runs underneath the filesystem. Perhaps I am confused on what you mean???
If you are asking about setting up one volume per disk (jbod with no spanning), then the answer is that OS 6 lets you do this also. You can delete the volume you have now, and create new ones for each drive - so it is actually easier than OS 4.
I thought (but reading your reply I guess I remembered wrong) that when you initialize a raid set from zero (ie: all disks are totally blank) it only needs to initialize the filesystem as it assumes it is empty. But it could be that I mixed things up in my mind (when setting up a mirror raid (raid 1) with Intel Storage Engine, it is just clicking create and do a quick format).
What I wanted to do is go through all the steps;
first create 1 disk; check performance
create 2 disk array; using raid 1 (mirror); check performance
create 3 disk array; using raid 5 (2 data 1 parity); check performance
create 4 disk array; using raid 6 (2 data, 2 parity); check performance
create 4 disk array; using raid 5 (3 data, 1 parity); check performance
And when the performance dips, try the same setup with another disk to rule out disk issues.
It'll probably (very) time consuming when the volume needs to resync everytime. But it's a gutfeeling that there is something wrong somewhere.
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!
