| killerus2 wrote: |
|---|
| StephenB wrote: |
|---|
| I suspect that changing the stripe size will not improve your performance. Though I've never tried it. |
If u didn't try to change strip size - then what are you talking about at all? |
I think you will find that the ultra is limited by the CPU performance, not by the raw RAID performance. The same RAID structure is used in the PRO-6, and the performance is much better. So my suspicion is that it won't help. I didn't say you shouldn't try it.
| killerus2 wrote: |
|---|
| StephenB wrote: |
|---|
Generally you won't see any performance gain with teaming if you are testing with a single user. Teaming protocols are designed for trunking, and usually are designed to limit a single data flow to 1 gbit. That prevents packet loss when the connection is switched to a normal gigabit client.
|
And what if i got 2 NIC cards on my PC teamed UP with LACP on switch??? i get better performance and thats why u choose - like raid level in discs - "raid" level on teaming. - Theoretically i got 2GB on both sides PC/NAS. |
LACP for sure is constrained to prevent more than 1 gigabit dataflows. This is layer-2, so dataflows are between two mac addresses. Teaming on both ends will not change that. Again, the original purpose was to improve performance between switches. Some of the other teaming modes in the NAS might work differently. But LACP is constrained to 1 gigabit dataflows in order to ensure delivery in-order packets without loss to the sink. The simplest way to prevent out-of-order delivery is to keep all the traffic to a specific destination on the same physical wire.
| killerus2 wrote: |
|---|
| StephenB wrote: |
|---|
| If you have SSH enabled you can measure the performance of the raw raid array. That lets you separate the network and SAMBA performance. |
If i haven't done this how could i know that HDD CAN DO IT FATSTER??? yes - i tested on nas /dev/md2 (6x1.8T) - 180MB+ in raw read this isn't briliant - two HDD (not SIX in raid5) can do this without getting sweat - but i can handle it. |
Then you already know that the RAID array is 2.5x faster than your measured network performance, and is already faster than gigabit ethernet. So I guess I'm confused on why you think changing the stripe size will matter, since the raid array itself is not the bottleneck. Though I'd be interested in hearing your results.
| killerus2 wrote: |
|---|
Page is offline or gone - check links if u paste them please. Second - yes i'm sure my pc can handle 400MB+ raw SAVE/READ if only network can send me this much (3x128GB adata s511 SATA 3 in raid0). |
The link works for me, and I did test it before I posted.
