NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
mbaran
Nov 29, 2013Aspirant
RN102 Expected Performance?
I purchased an RN102 a few weeks ago and have just gotten it around to setting it up. It was the preconfigured model with 4TB (2x2TB Toshiba Drives).
Reading the report at smallnetbuilder, it looks like in RAID1 they were achieving 49.1MB/s write and 83.3MB/s read. I can't even come close to that. I assume that was with NFS, but both my NFS and SMB test are about equal. From a Windows 2012 (or Win 2008 R2) server (which is a guest in ESX) I can only seem to get about 45.5 write (not terrible!) but my reads are only about 52-53MB/s. The reads seem to fluctuate like crazy though, sometimes the reads will only be in the mid 30's range.
Am I dreaming of 49.1/83.3 with this unit? My writes using standard windows file copy are usually only in the 35 range, robocopy seems the slowest to NFS. I am able to get a test file of 1024MB sent to the NAS in about 22-24 seconds.
Any thoughts? RN is using 6.1.4, NFS 32kb with 8 threads (all default). Windows 2012 which seems to perform a little better uses an rsize of 64kb it seems, while 2008 use 32kb.
I have both systems connected to a dedicated 1gb unmanaged switch which has a single port uplink to the rest of the network. I want to get the performance sorted before I copy over everything from ESX to the NAS.
Reading the report at smallnetbuilder, it looks like in RAID1 they were achieving 49.1MB/s write and 83.3MB/s read. I can't even come close to that. I assume that was with NFS, but both my NFS and SMB test are about equal. From a Windows 2012 (or Win 2008 R2) server (which is a guest in ESX) I can only seem to get about 45.5 write (not terrible!) but my reads are only about 52-53MB/s. The reads seem to fluctuate like crazy though, sometimes the reads will only be in the mid 30's range.
Am I dreaming of 49.1/83.3 with this unit? My writes using standard windows file copy are usually only in the 35 range, robocopy seems the slowest to NFS. I am able to get a test file of 1024MB sent to the NAS in about 22-24 seconds.
Any thoughts? RN is using 6.1.4, NFS 32kb with 8 threads (all default). Windows 2012 which seems to perform a little better uses an rsize of 64kb it seems, while 2008 use 32kb.
I have both systems connected to a dedicated 1gb unmanaged switch which has a single port uplink to the rest of the network. I want to get the performance sorted before I copy over everything from ESX to the NAS.
14 Replies
Replies have been turned off for this discussion
- StephenBGuru - Experienced UserCan you try this tool? http://www.808.dk/?code-csharp-nas-performance
That would give a reproducible load.
Also, what firmware are you running?
BTW, there are reports here that the next release (6.1.5) might require a factory reset to get some btrfs performance improvements. That is supposed to be out shortly - you might want to wait for that before you copy files over. - mbaranAspirantThat tool via CIFS is telling me:
Avg Write: 18.59
Avg Read: 89.73
via NFS
Avg Write: 44.88
Avg Read: 56.61
Both tests were done using a 400MB file. My OS version is 6.1.4. What is the ETA on 6.1.5?
Curious why this tool had such a high read via CIFS and so low with NFS. - mbaranAspirantbump, anyone else?
- StephenBGuru - Experienced UserWith my RN102, CIFS total is
Avg Write: 51.82 MB/sec
Avg Read: 77.78 MB/sec
I don't have NFS installed on the PC, so I can't compare that. - mbaranAspirantMy reads seem low, but my write seems awful, but it depends on which tool I am using...
Wonder if the 6.1.5 will increase performance? - StephenBGuru - Experienced UserI agree the something is off with the write speed. Do you have antivirus turned off?
- mbaranAspirantI never turned it on, unless there's some trick to fully disabling it?
- StephenBGuru - Experienced UserMaybe start by double-checking the system/settings tab, and confirm that antivirus is grayed out (e.g. has no green bar)
Also, do you have continuous protection enabled for the folder? - mbaranAspirantYes, continuous protection is on. Should that not be for optimal performance?
- StephenBGuru - Experienced User
I think it depends exactly what you are doing.mbaran wrote: Yes, continuous protection is on. Should that not be for optimal performance?
Try turning it off, and see if the write speed improves.
Related Content
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!