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.
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.
Someone with concrete data please tell me what is so good about WD RED drives......
They have better warranty, yes. But apart from that I have yet to see a single FACT that they perform, live or survive better in a NAS environment than other drives. A pure marketing exercise if you ask me, to charge more money for turning off TLER.
Otherwise, it's the same drive, same technology. I'm not complaining, the TLER disable and increased warranty is worth the extra. But let's stop pretending all the other drives are not as good in a NAS - sticking RED on it doesn't make it a better drive.
(The click of death should be picked up in SMARTs, but is usually not a good sign!)
On the basis of our evaluation, we have no reservations in recommending the WD Red lineup as the drives of choice for a NAS system. As usual, it is extended usage and consumer reports a few months down the line which will tell the true story. At the moment, however, WD does have a winner in the NAS market segment with the WD Red hard drives.
Hi, Another interesting performance test. I'm happy with the speeds varying between 80-60MB/s, but notice the large (and lengthy) drop of speed that occurs more than once:
Surely smbd at 14% CPU isn't responsible for this drop in speed. Not sure where to go from here either than everything magically working when (if) I replace the drives.
how did you have 110MB/s on your ultra4 with 4.2 ? SMB/CIFS or FTP ? (with my ultra4, i get 40MB/s with smb, with only 30% cpu, but with ftp, i cap at 110MB/s, like you)
Interesting article, but I didn't see anything other than configurable TLER, advanced vibration (that many drives support). I think that anyone recommending them as better than other drives (that have configurable TLER) is branding persuasion. I've used WD drives in AMD softraid, and if along TLER they do drop out. But performance, any everything else, is just the same.
There's no rocket science in WD Red, that's all I'm saying - and I'd be sad if people swapped out their drives thinking otherwise. If I need a new drive, I'd be happy to buy them - the price premium for the extended warranty is a no-brainer!
Back to the main topic - I can only think of 3 reasons for the slowdown: 1. Memory issues - using swap 2. Protocol problems, but then I'm guessing it's uses standard Linux implementations 3. Other processes interrupting, perhaps the relevant processes need to be less nice, or the scheduling has changed 4. Something else 😄
There's no rocket science in WD Red, that's all I'm saying... If I need a new drive, I'd be happy to buy them - the price premium for the extended warranty is a no-brainer!
We agree. I buy them because of the warranty, and because WDC will support (e.g, recommends them for NAS use) - which is not the case for some other WDC drives.
There is no rocket science, but a solid drive with settings appropriate for NAS use.
Back to the main topic - I can only think of 3 reasons for the slowdown: 1. Memory issues - using swap 2. Protocol problems, but then I'm guessing it's uses standard Linux implementations 3. Other processes interrupting, perhaps the relevant processes need to be less nice, or the scheduling has changed 4. Something else 😄
There shouldn't be a problem with memory - I actually upgraded the unit to a 2GB ram chip (of course, still receiving the same speeds with the 1GB chip - tested just in case). I have found after doing some checking that 2 of my Green's have ~500,000 LCC thanks to me forgetting to adjust the idle timer. I'm guessing this could be the cause of the clicks, not sure if it's causing the speed issue.
I also did some more research on the Red drives - which apparently offer a URE of 10^14. Which is also bad for raid recovery.
Unfortunately, the only other good option it seems (ignorant of other brands) is the RE4... which is far outside my price range ($350 per 3TB 64M cache drive here).
I also did some more research on the Red drives - which apparently offer a URE of 10^14...
You won't find any consumer-grade drives with a better URE spec. You need to move up to enterprise class if you need 10^15 spec - which of course sell at a price premium.
Performance still terrible - the device is capable of much faster speeds - yet is now unable to reach anywhere near it's potential. I hope NTGR do something about this - for a core part of NAS functionality it should be a high priority.
Interesting article, but I didn't see anything other than configurable TLER, advanced vibration (that many drives support). I think that anyone recommending them as better than other drives (that have configurable TLER) is branding persuasion. I've used WD drives in AMD softraid, and if along TLER they do drop out. But performance, any everything else, is just the same.
There's no rocket science in WD Red, that's all I'm saying - and I'd be sad if people swapped out their drives thinking otherwise. If I need a new drive, I'd be happy to buy them - the price premium for the extended warranty is a no-brainer!
IMHO.
Hi,
I recently attended a Synology roadshow (of all things) and they also had a senior WD engineer as one of the extra speakers. The guy had been at WD since it opened and ran one of the the teams that handled drive firmware. We had a chat after the presentation and I asked him the same thing - what made WD RED better than their WB Black drives.
Answer was they used the some of the same drive mechanism from the RE4 with a modified firmware based off the WD Black. The controller is smaller than the RE4 hence the used the WD Black controller with some modifications. Most important one being TLER along with better jitter control etc… He could have been talking crap, but after listening to marketingdroids, he new what he was taking about.
On another note: Was really impressed at how fast all the NAS manufacturers qualified the WD REDs for use in their NAS devices. Normally it takes ages. This was the first time I have ever seen virtually all the players support it close to launch date.
PS: I do alot of work with video these days on big RAIDs and SANs - these ALL use HGST so am not a WD fan usually.
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.
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.
