NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.

Forum Discussion

adiamond2's avatar
adiamond2
Aspirant
May 24, 2017

Readynas 104, Avast AV, Malewarebytes. Yikes!

I have 4 drives in a Raid 5 config. I have been encountering very slow speeds with smaller files.  So, I conducted a test using a directory of 164 small files  totalling about 200KB [sic].    The tests just copies this directory from my NAS to a place on my SSD.  The target PC is a fast windows 10 machine. I wanted to see if Avast AV and Malwarebytes (MB) were effecting the time to copy the dir.  Here are some results:

 

  1. AV and MB - about 90 seconds
  2. AV and MB up but all real time protections turned off  - 67 seconds
  3. AV, No MB (MB actually closed/exited) - 4.5 seconds
  4. No AV (disabled),  No MB (closed) - 1.5 seconds
  5. No AV (disabled)  and MB (all on) - 17 seconds 

So this tells us that

  1. Without AV or MB (shut down completely) - the baseine speed is 1.5 seconds.
  2. Just MB is 17 seconds, > 10x longer than the baseline - MB gives it the biggest hit and oddly that hit is mostly still there if its up but real time protections are disabled
  3. Just AV is 4.5 seconds - 3x longer than baseline
  4. MV+AV is 90 seconds - 20x longer than baseline. The speed is closer to a multiplicative effect of the MB and AV hits versus addative.

At this pont, I imagine a person reading this is thinkin, "Uh huh, what's that have to do with  a NAS?"  Here are the corresponding times copied from a local standard HD

  1. AV and MB - about 0.3 seconds
  2. not done
  3. AV, No MB (MB actually closed/exited) - 0.17 seconds
  4. No AV (disabled),  No MB (closed) - 0.17 seconds
  5. No AV (disabled)  and MB (all on) - 0.3 seconds 

So when a local HD is the source ( the NAS isn't the source):

  1. When AV and MB are on it's 300x faster than with the NAS - this is the big deal.
  2. The effect of the AV is negligable (vs with the NAS it made the copy 3 times slower)
  3. without either, the basline is 5x faster without the NAS (which, given the small file sizes might be OK relatively and probably not that big a deal in absolute times (an acceptable time waiting for tasks)

 

Obviously, I'll ping the MB and Avast but as I'm using free Avast that's unlikley plus this 3 product issue is a recipe for finger pointing.  MB is obviouly the bigger deal but why it's so lethal with AV when the NAS in particular is involved is the big bugaboo.  

 

EDIT

One more interesting item:

When I do a Properties on the copied directory on the SSD vs the NAS, they both report 200K for the files but the SSD rports 420KB actually occupied on disk while the NAS reports 10.2MB!  That's seems a bit much of a disparity.  These files are about 1K actual each which for the NAS comes out to be each 1K file taking about 64K (well, 62K) of disk space.

 

6 Replies

Replies have been turned off for this discussion
  • 5400RPM is definitely slower for access. Though a brand new WD Red 5400RPM might be faster than a 10 yo 7200RPM disk.
    If you have room for a cheap SSD, you could try that too. But keep in mind that the RN104 has the weakest CPU among NETGEAR ReadyNAS products.
    • adiamond2's avatar
      adiamond2
      Aspirant

      Thanks.  I'm really kind of amazed.  I wasn't expecting a fast NAS but I thought for single person use it would be sufficient.  And it might be but AV and much worse Malwarebytes and AV really puts a nail in its coffin.  

       

       

      BTW, do you know anything about the "and also" question in my post:

       

      One more interesting item:

      When I do a Properties on the copied directory on the SSD vs the NAS, they both report 200K for the files but the SSD rports 420KB actually occupied on disk while the NAS reports 10.2MB!  That's seems a bit much of a disparity.  These files are about 1K actual each which for the NAS comes out to be each 1K file taking about 64K (well, 62K) of disk space.

      • jak0lantash's avatar
        jak0lantash
        Mentor

        adiamond2 wrote:

         

        When I do a Properties on the copied directory on the SSD vs the NAS, they both report 200K for the files but the SSD rports 420KB actually occupied on disk while the NAS reports 10.2MB!  That's seems a bit much of a disparity.  These files are about 1K actual each which for the NAS comes out to be each 1K file taking about 64K (well, 62K) of disk space.


        I'm not sure, I don't think it's due to chunk size. It could be due to imprecise counting (round up).

        You could check directly on BTRFS (in your case, you probably want to use --kbytes flag):

        # btrfs fi us --kbytes /data
        Overall:
            Device size:                  1948664832.00KiB
            Device allocated:             1309745152.00KiB
            Device unallocated:            638919680.00KiB
            Device missing:                        0.00KiB
            Used:                         1306251520.00KiB
            Free (estimated):              641020928.00KiB      (min: 321561056.00KiB)
            Data ratio:                               1.00
            Metadata ratio:                           2.00
            Global reserve:                    26080.00KiB      (used: 0.00KiB)
        
        Data,single: Size:1307582464.00KiB, Used:1305481216.00KiB
           /dev/md127   1307582464.00KiB
        
        Metadata,DUP: Size:1048576.00KiB, Used:384928.00KiB
           /dev/md127   2097152.00KiB
        
        System,DUP: Size:32768.00KiB, Used:192.00KiB
           /dev/md127   65536.00KiB
        
        Unallocated:
           /dev/md127   638919680.00KiB

        While the ratio is huge, 10MB remains tiny compared to volume capacity.

  • This is due to access time.

    Access time to a network device via SMB is much slower than to a local HDD.

    Because we're talking about many small files, it's a lot of access time.

    Also, a ReadyNAS 104 is kinda slow, which doesn't help access time.

    Then you add AV + MB, which implies more access.

     

    Try with bigger files, I would expect the difference to be much lower than the "300x" you found.

    • adiamond2's avatar
      adiamond2
      Aspirant

      Well, the unavoidable issue is that the small files that are my unvaoidable reality are killing me (time wise).  

       

      BTW, I have two I think fast HGST drives, one older 7200 RPM WD drive, and another even slower 5400 RPM WD drive. Do you think that the slower drives could have a very significant impact on this issue?  Is it worth trying to replace them with faster HGST drives or is that a second or third order issue that would only have an efffect to small to bother with?

NETGEAR Academy

Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology! 

Join Us!

ProSupport for Business

Comprehensive support plans for maximum network uptime and business peace of mind.

 

Learn More