Are your four drives in dual redundancy? Mine are so it's really a three drive config. Maybe a drive cache size difference?
Single redundancy for me. The "-T" test reads from the portion of your main RAM that Linux uses as a disk buffer; it just tests how fast Linux's disk-cache algorithm running on your CPU can read data from your RAM. The drive isn't even accessed during the timed portion of the test, so nothing about the drive's performance -- including the size of the drive's onboard cache -- should affect the result of the "-T" cached-read test.
Mmh i tried it with a Q6600 (4Core) in After the BIOS Update the ReadyNAS 6 worked perfekt. So i went an took my ReadyNAS PRO with the Q6600 i get this (Even After the BIOS Update).
Sat Mar 2 18:58:21 CET 2013 System is up. Sat Mar 2 18:14:26 CET 2013 System is up. Sat Mar 2 18:01:01 CET 2013 VBAT power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:01:01 CET 2013 3VDUAL power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:01:01 CET 2013 VCC1_05 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.04 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:01:00 CET 2013 VCC1_5 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.50 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:01:00 CET 2013 VCC1_25 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.25 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:01:00 CET 2013 VCC3 power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:01:00 CET 2013 AVCC power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:01:00 CET 2013 DDB18 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.80 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:00:40 CET 2013 Gerät fährt herunter Sat Mar 2 18:00:40 CET 2013 Bitte schließen Sie diese Browsersitzung und melden Sie sich nach dem Neustart mit RAIDar wieder an. Das System fährt jetzt herunter... Sat Mar 2 18:00:33 CET 2013 Fan 1 has failed (SYS -1 rpm). Sat Mar 2 18:00:33 CET 2013 VBAT power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:00:33 CET 2013 3VDUAL power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:00:33 CET 2013 VCC1_05 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.04 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:00:33 CET 2013 VCC1_5 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.50 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:00:33 CET 2013 VCC1_25 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.25 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:00:33 CET 2013 VCC3 power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:00:33 CET 2013 AVCC power is out of normal range [expected: 3.30 current: -0.00]. Sat Mar 2 18:00:33 CET 2013 DDB18 power is out of normal range [expected: 1.80 current: -0.00].
Now i put back in my E6600 and it Works with no error Messages but Lot slower (put still faster as the Org. CPU). Is there a change to get it to work with the Q6600? What are These error Messages mean? How i cut fix that?
On boot up, RAIDiator firmware looks at the system type, and builds a layout for monitor_enclosure (health check program, adjusts fans, sends alerts). Easiest way to deal with your logs is to modify that layout (saved in ramdisk) and restart moitor_enclosure. I haven't tested this out, but it should hopefully work, maybe needing a few tweaks:
This removes the voltage lines from the layout, then restarts the service. So it won't know to read the voltages, causing logs/email alerts. If you look at /ramfs/enclosure.cfg, you can also see references for the temp/fan sensors.
I had to do a similar boot script for my retro-fitted Repertoire. I replaced the Sparc board with x86 (Ultra4 board). Since the Repertoire chassis has no fans, the system would complain that the fan has failed. The script I used there would tell the system there was no fans to monitor (over the default Ultra4 layout), so no more alerts would occur.
Single redundancy for me. The "-T" test reads from the portion of your main RAM that Linux uses as a disk buffer; it just tests how fast Linux's disk-cache algorithm running on your CPU can read data from your RAM. The drive isn't even accessed during the timed portion of the test, so nothing about the drive's performance -- including the size of the drive's onboard cache -- should affect the result of the "-T" cached-read test.
Well 4 drives should do a little better than 3 and one of my drives is a cool model (an odd 5900rpm I believe), but it seems hard to believe that is all of the difference. Could you post the output of hdparm -i /dev/sda? I'd like to see if there is anything special your drive can do. Maybe the fact that I have 3 different drive models triggers some poor md behavior due to cache size mismatches or something.
One thing odd I noticed is that when I run the test of /dev/c/c my USB drives all wake up. I've got 4 of them attached to a USB hub. Maybe I should try disconnecting them all?
The "-T" test reads from the portion of your main RAM that Linux uses as a disk buffer; it just tests how fast Linux's disk-cache algorithm running on your CPU can read data from your RAM. The drive isn't even accessed during the timed portion of the test, so nothing about the drive's performance -- including the size of the drive's onboard cache -- should affect the result of the "-T" cached-read test.
Well 4 drives should do a little better than 3 and one of my drives is a cool model (an odd 5900rpm I believe), but it seems hard to believe that is all of the difference.
Right, your drive performance is none of the difference in the -T cached-read test, since that test only measures the speed at which data travels between the NAS's RAM and the NAS's CPU.
Well, it seems like hdparm is not very accurate. I ran a more simple test and I get similar IO rates to the drive, but the reads from the linux cache are much higher than what hdparm reports. I'm still suspicious as what the heck hdparm does with my USB drives.
This is what I did:
# First create a 1GB file: dd if=/dev/zero of=gigfile bs=1M count=1000
# Flush the file to disk sync
# purge the cache echo 3 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
# see the cache is mostly empty free -m
# time the physical read case time cat gigfile > /dev/null
# see that the big file is now in cache free -m
# time the cache read time cat gigfile > /dev/null
If I divide 1000 / by the elapsed time I get a physical read number similar to hdparm. For me about 300MB/sec. I think the difference there is probably the drives I'm using. But for the cached read I get over 4000MB/s so I don't understand why hdparm reports only 1900MB/s.
By the way fastfwd, what os rev are you running? I'm running 4.2.21.
Yeah. The throughput tests should be run only when the system is idle, and they should be run a few times; the fastest result is the most accurate one. I usually do a series of ten runs over a couple minutes, and I often see a 2:1 range of speeds.
dsm1212 wrote:
By the way fastfwd, what os rev are you running? I'm running 4.2.21.
4.2.22, with the 07/26/2010 BIOS (which Netgear calls 2.0 and AMI calls 8.14).
Actually I have the original ReadyNAS Pro Pioneer Edition (bought in 2009) with this bios revision : 07/26/2010 FLAME6-MB V2.0 (Thanks to chirpa's bios_update addon).
It's actually running a Core 2 Duo E6700 @2.66GHz and 2x2Gigs DDR2 PC6400 Crucial and I would like to know if i can upgrade the CPU, because I find that the E6700 is powerful but hot.
I have the original ReadyNAS Pro Pioneer Edition (bought in 2009) with this bios revision : 07/26/2010 FLAME6-MB V2.0 (Thanks to chirpa's bios_update addon).
It's actually running a Core 2 Duo E6700 @2.66GHz and 2x2Gigs DDR2 PC6400 Crucial and I would like to know if i can upgrade the CPU, because I find that the E6700 is powerful but hot.
Do you happen to remember your processor's SSPEC number? The SL9S7's idle current consumption is approximately double that of the SL9ZF, and since your processor spends most of its time idle, this is a significant factor in chip temperature. If you have an SL9S7, swapping it for an SL9ZF would probably help a lot.
One data point, possibly helpful: In my Pro Pioneer, a 2.4GHz E6600 SL9ZL (with the same low-power optimizations as the E6700 SL9ZF), runs cooler than the standard 1.8GHz E2160.
I'm thinking of getting a ReadyNAS Pro Business Edition, RNDP6610. I want to upgrade the CPU in this puppy, so I've browsed trough the topic and I've seen various CPU models being mentioned. However I am unsure which ones are compatible with the RNDP6610... Could someone please tell me which CPU models are compatible with the RNDP6610? I am looking to do some 'heavy' transcoding, so I'm looking at all CPU power that I can get.
it always depends on your Board Version, and the Firmware. I have a first Gen. ReadyNAS Business and the best what i can use in it is a Intel E6600 (2x 2.6 GHz / 4 Cache / Bus 1066MHz). In a second ReadyNAS PRO Business, but much newer, a Intel Q6600 (4x 2.6 GHz / 8 Cache / Bus 1066MHz) is runing just perfekt AND COOLER! Always check the TEMP on your CPU under full load.
But you cut put practically any CPU that fits this Profile: 1.) the Socket LGA775 2.) Busspeed max. 1066MHz and i think in some Mainbordversions only Max TDP 65W but this is variable you have to find out. (as far i found out, more Cache on the CPU is better than more GHz)
I'm not sure what version the ReadyNas Business Pro I am planning to buy is, but I do know that it is 4 years old.
soremaniac wrote:
it always depends on your Board Version, and the Firmware. I have a first Gen. ReadyNAS Business and the best what i can use in it is a Intel E6600 (2x 2.6 GHz / 4 Cache / Bus 1066MHz). In a second ReadyNAS PRO Business, but much newer, a Intel Q6600 (4x 2.6 GHz / 8 Cache / Bus 1066MHz) is runing just perfekt AND COOLER! Always check the TEMP on your CPU under full load.
So if I understand it correctly, the first Gen does not support quad-core CPUs but your second gen supports quadcore CPUs, right? I am mainly interested in the E7600 because it's TDP is the same as the original CPU and should suffice for my needs.
I have the original ReadyNAS Pro Pioneer Edition (bought in 2009) with this bios revision : 07/26/2010 FLAME6-MB V2.0 (Thanks to chirpa's bios_update addon).
It's actually running a Core 2 Duo E6700 @2.66GHz and 2x2Gigs DDR2 PC6400 Crucial and I would like to know if i can upgrade the CPU, because I find that the E6700 is powerful but hot.
Do you happen to remember your processor's SSPEC number? The SL9S7's idle current consumption is approximately double that of the SL9ZF, and since your processor spends most of its time idle, this is a significant factor in chip temperature. If you have an SL9S7, swapping it for an SL9ZF would probably help a lot.
One data point, possibly helpful: In my Pro Pioneer, a 2.4GHz E6600 SL9ZL (with the same low-power optimizations as the E6700 SL9ZF), runs cooler than the standard 1.8GHz E2160.
Thank you for your answer but I am already with a SL9ZF 😉 But I am using transcoding a lot with AirVideo for streaming on my iPad and iPhone.
When I did my CPU swap, I went from an E2160 to E6400. The same clock speed, but has VT-d and more cache. Was using it for AirVideo transcoding and VirtualBox use. I believe the E6400 is what the 3200 came with at one point.
It's possible. I really like the Pro with the E6700 but I do not find a better cooler which can fit in the ReadyNAS to cool this great CPU the way it should be cooled. Chirpa, do you have any idea if a third party cooler could fit ?
Ya, but has to be the right low profile to fit in the case. Thought I saw someone add a larger one, and void warranty by chopping up the side panel.. Thread somewhere?
Thank uou Chripa, I already found a link for a cooler (http://www.coolmod.com/product/3765/0/0 ... -Cobre.htm) but i do not find it anywhere in stock. That's why I am asking, and i do not want to do anything on the panel.
I would like to find a 3rd party fit to fit replacement 😉
I am pretty sure it does not exist, but I will never know if I do not ask
That one may fit, need to measure height in the chassis. Stick a paperclip through the vent holes on the Pro, to the existing heatsink, see how much space is still available.
Thank uou Chripa, I already found a link for a cooler (http://www.coolmod.com/product/3765/0/0 ... -Cobre.htm) but i do not find it anywhere in stock. That's why I am asking, and i do not want to do anything on the panel.
I would like to find a 3rd party fit to fit replacement 😉
I am pretty sure it does not exist, but I will never know if I do not ask
I don't know, but i think this will not work, becouse the fan on the ReadyNAS is fixed to the Board with scrus, the fan on the pic has some kind of clip like the orginal intel fan's and i cut not mout this fan with these "clip-system" to the readynas board.
