NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Solved
RN3220 CPU upgrade -- Negligible effect??
I upgraded the processor of an RN3220 from an i3-3220 3.30GHz, which is dual-core 4-thread CPU, to a Xeon E3-1225 V2 @ 3.20GHz, a quad-core 4-thread CPU as comes in an RN4220 and sysbench shows almo...
OK, I'm not entirely sure what was going on. I upgraded a second one and got way better results. So I swapped the memory between the two and the first one now gave me the improved speed. Just to check, I swapped the memory back, and now they both perform like this:
Test execution summary:
total time: 2.5567s
total number of events: 10000
total time taken by event execution: 20.4385
per-request statistics:
min: 1.02ms
avg: 2.04ms
max: 28.60ms
approx. 95 percentile: 11.02msThreads fairness:
events (avg/stddev): 1250.0000/27.44
execution time (avg/stddev): 2.5548/0.00So, the memory must not have been seated well, even though dmidecode showed both banks properly. Since I swapped out the memory before the CPU, I suspect that the performance shown for the original processor is also bogus.
Dmidecode confirms one DIMM in channel A and one in Channel B. But for grins, I put both in Channel A and the result was basically no change (within the normal variation since the OS background tasks are also running).
OK, I'm not entirely sure what was going on. I upgraded a second one and got way better results. So I swapped the memory between the two and the first one now gave me the improved speed. Just to check, I swapped the memory back, and now they both perform like this:
Test execution summary:
total time: 2.5567s
total number of events: 10000
total time taken by event execution: 20.4385
per-request statistics:
min: 1.02ms
avg: 2.04ms
max: 28.60ms
approx. 95 percentile: 11.02ms
Threads fairness:
events (avg/stddev): 1250.0000/27.44
execution time (avg/stddev): 2.5548/0.00
So, the memory must not have been seated well, even though dmidecode showed both banks properly. Since I swapped out the memory before the CPU, I suspect that the performance shown for the original processor is also bogus.
Well, that awesome! Very strange and confusing, but hopefully it stays consistently fast.
Well, turns out I messed up and used --cpu-max-prime=10000 instead of 100000 in the re-test. So I'm back where I was wondering why this CPU upgrade seemed to do no good and why this newer CPU is slower than the one in my older NAS.
For grins, I found a cheap Xeon E3-1270 (V1), which is marginally faster but has hyper-threading. It didn't work at all. But it also has no video capability. And while there is no video port on the computer, the BIOS may be looking for that.
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!
