Hi,I just updated my Readynas Ultra 4 to OS 6, and am now experiencing a huge performance difference.Previously, I could read at around 110MB/s constantly over a gigabit connection. Now, I barely make 40, and even then speeds are very inconsistent. I have tried different configurations such as Teaming (multiple methods), changing MTU and the likes. Operations can sometimes start fast and then get exponentially slower (sometimes even stop completely) then start back up again at reduced speeds. Both SMB and NFS show similar bad speeds.Write speeds suffer similarly, being both slow and inconsistent.I am wondering if this has anything to do with BTRFS, or if there is anything I can do to fix this issue.I am using WD Green drivesx3, running RAID-5 (XRAID2) on a fresh install of 6.0.4.I know Ultra 4 on OS 6 isn't supported, just wondering if such a performance drop is expected.

6.0.5 is due for release soon. You may wish to check the performance on that once it has been released.If the performance is too slow for you you can go back to 4.2.x firmware but that would require another factory default (wipes all data, settings, everything).

Yeah, hopefully 6.0.5 does improve things (raw I/O speed wise). I've tried changing just about every setting short of changing to Flex-raid, nothing seems to provide reliable speeds.Sometimes I can achieve ~80MB/s, sometimes I can't. CPU usage wise SMB usually uses around 20-30% when doing operations.Here are some transfer screenshots (using SMB obviously). Connected via direct 3M CAT6 gigabit line/9000 MTU.I've also tried disabling the WDIDLE3 timeout on the drives, enabling write caching etc... but still have this inconsistent speed.

Would it be worth replacing these drives with WD Red drives?I'm guessing they will perform better and be much more future-proof, however, I would still hope performance is the same (or better, of course!) as 4.2.

What disks are you using at the moment?WD RED disks aren't the best disks performance wise but they are designed for NAS use.I don't expect changing the disks would have much impact on performance.

3x WD20EARX Caviar Green's (2TB).We just found something interesting - on a client running Linux Mint 14 transfer speeds reported 30-40MB/s (AKA terrible) performance, however on the same system running Windows transfer speeds were 80-90 as expected.Just something to add.Also, I noticed that one of my disks were occasionally (once or twice every 10-15 mins I think - more often at the moment) clicking somewhat noticeably, which I guess could be a sign that it should be replaced.The disks are around 2-3 years old by now.

Readynas OS 6 Massive Performance Decrease

48 Replies

Replies have been turned off for this discussion

ihartley
Tutor
May 23, 2013
Ker--ching $$$$. Anyone will certify your drives quickly if you pay them. Some people might even test the drives :-)

janforman

Aspirant

May 24, 2013

StephenB wrote:
hando wrote:
Replaced the green's with new 3TB reds.

Performance still terrible - the device is capable of much faster speeds...
I guess I'm not surprised that the reds didn't improve performance.

Hopefully Netgear will spend some cycles on optimizing.

WD RED are great hardware, but may be slower than WD Green
WD RED are optimized for long life and lowest power (amazing aprox. 4WATT per unit than Green 6WATT)

If you need some speed you must buy WD Black Series, but we have a lot systems with WD RED and perfomance is aprox 100MB/s READ/WRITE in RAID5.

StephenB
Guru - Experienced User
May 24, 2013
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1460910/wd-re ... ive-speeds says the reds are a bit faster than the green drives and the barracuda xt
tiranor
Aspirant
May 25, 2013
Looked at that thread, i didn't know WD implemented 1TB platters on the Red series. Just beware that the barracuda XT is the older generation, the lasted barracuda are much faster.
Commander_Cody
Aspirant
May 28, 2013
I'm pretty sure TLER doesn't matter in a NAS as it's software RAID anyway.

Are you able to factory default with the new OS on your new disks as a test?
As far as I know upgrading from EXT4 to BTFS is unpredictable.
If you can start as BTFS from the get go it should be more reliable.
StephenB
Guru - Experienced User
May 28, 2013
Commander_Cody wrote:
I'm pretty sure TLER doesn't matter in a NAS as it's software RAID anyway...
AFAIK software raid controller vs hardware raid controller doesn't really matter. If the response to a read or write request takes too long, because the drive is busy reallocating a sector, or retrying a read request, then there will be problems maintaining the RAID array as a whole with reasonable performance.
ihartley
Tutor
May 29, 2013
Exactly, a drive with TLER will drop out of any RAID array. Been there, got the T-shirt. I'm not sure what the spinny magnetic disk industry have been doing for the last 10 years, other than cramming more bits on the disk. There's no 12 platter drives, drive with multiple heads/platter, anything innovative. Best was the hybrid Momentus drives that were quickly superceded....

Now that you can easily saturate SATA with a SSD array, one wonders if spin tech is dead... Or maybe now they'll start doing some serious R&D!
StephenB
Guru - Experienced User
May 29, 2013
ihartley wrote:
...one wonders if spin tech is dead...
Interesting question.

http://www.trefis.com/stock/stx/article ... 2013-02-28 claims that the hard drive industry will shrink by by $4 billion this year (over 10%). That's due to the drop off in PC sales and the falling prices of SSD.

I don't think that is stoppable myself. Though it isn't clear when that trend starts to affect network storage. I'm thinking we are still quite a way from affordable 4-5 TB SSD.

I am not convinced that RAID makes a lot of sense for SSD - they fail in different ways from traditional disks, and my guess is that the array is even more likely to see near-simultaneous failures.
ihartley
Tutor
Jun 01, 2013
RAID for SSDs makes no sense at all in it's current sense; but storage strategies implementing multiple SSDs do. SATA3 makes no sense at alll, we need a step change. Increased IOPs and throughput with the right interfaces. Spinning storage currently has limitations from physics; in less than 5 years it will be dead unless something happens; too much power, too little storage, too much money.

Remember history repeats itself: the floppy disk....?
StephenB
Guru - Experienced User
Jun 01, 2013
ihartley wrote:
RAID for SSDs makes no sense at all in it's current sense; but storage strategies implementing multiple SSDs do...
I agree completely. Even in an SSD world, there's a need to have your file system span multiple drives, and also to be able to recover data when disks fail. But current RAID isn't the answer.

ihartley wrote:
Spinning storage currently has limitations from physics..
I wouldn't count spinning storage out yet, we have 5 TB drives apparently coming out this year. And consumer-grade SSD has its issues also (in addition to the price).

ihartley wrote:
...Remember history repeats itself: the floppy disk...
I'd happily let spinning storage go, when some better comes along. It's been quite a while since I needed to dust off my floppy drive, and I certainly don't miss it. :D

Forum Discussion

Readynas OS 6 Massive Performance Decrease

48 Replies

Related Content

Dynamic QoS Decreasing Speed

RN102 slow performances

WIFI performance D6400 AC1600

Decreased internet speed

how configure Readynas 524X for best video surveillance performance

NETGEAR Academy

ProSupport for Business