LAN speed
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
@DustinB3403 said:
Can you go into the network page on the NAS, and screen shot that for us?
I have a feeling the speed within the NAS is set to Auto. Which if it is, is likely causing the performance of the NIC to be slow. So either there is something wrong with the configuration on your Switch. Or the NAS.
yes you are right, the link speed is set to auto, should i change it to 1000 ??
No, it is working perfectly now. GigE requires Auto. Setting it to 1000 is an unofficial mode only supported by a few vendors who don't follow the specs.
Now that you say that - I do recall something about Auto being the standard - Is that in an RFC?
Yes. The GigE RFC states that only Auto can be used. Cisco uses their own standard that isn't true Ethernet. One of the many reasons I avoid craptastic Cisco gear. Non-standard Ethernet? You've got to be kidding me.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
now the speed is 24.2 MB/s
Awesome. It was probably just small files being used and not getting a chance for the TCP/IP tuning to kick in yet. That shows that you are getting the GigE connection for sure.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
@Dashrender said:
Well you're at 201 Mb/s now - what protocol are you using? SMB 2.0/3.0?
SMB 2.0
SMB is not very efficient. Not like it cuts your throughput by 75% or anything, but you don't use SMB for speed. NFS is quite a bit faster. But this should not be an issue. Sounds like you are getting fine performance.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
maybe if i change it to SMB 3.0 i will get more speed
Likely less. SMB 3 does more, not less.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
now the speed is 24.2 MB/s
Notice here that you are copying 79K items, not a single item. So you are not getting anywhere near the potential throughput unless individual items are many GB in size, then you could only look during those specific items. If that PST is 10GB, for example, you should see it get much, much faster than if you have tons of 4KB files. Each file requires the SMB protocol to set up and tear down the connection. It is not efficient for this kind of access at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Scott - what tool would you use to create a 120 GB file to keep a 1 Gb link saturated for 20 mins (assuming 800 Mb/s transfer)?
dd will do that, if you are on the NAS CLI.
dd in=/dev/zero of=zero.txt bs=4k count=400000
Pay attention to the output when it finished. It will also give you some information on how fast it wrote zeros to the drives. You can then use zero.txt to transfer to different points on the network.
Don't forget to delete that file when you're finished, it's literally 1GB of zeros.
-
Set up ftp server on that NAS and try to transfer a few big files. Hardly anything comes close to ftp in terms of raw speed.
-
@travisdh1 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Scott - what tool would you use to create a 120 GB file to keep a 1 Gb link saturated for 20 mins (assuming 800 Mb/s transfer)?
dd will do that, if you are on the NAS CLI.
dd in=/dev/zero of=zero.txt bs=4k count=400000
Pay attention to the output when it finished. It will also give you some information on how fast it wrote zeros to the drives. You can then use zero.txt to transfer to different points on the network.
Don't forget to delete that file when you're finished, it's literally 1GB of zeros.
For testing, try it with /dev/random instead of /dev/zero. Using all zeros can be misleading as things can compress it like crazy and show super high transfer rates when nothing is being transferred.
-
@marcinozga said:
Set up ftp server on that NAS and try to transfer a few big files. Hardly anything comes close to ftp in terms of raw speed.
Still needs those "few big items" though.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
Set up ftp server on that NAS and try to transfer a few big files. Hardly anything comes close to ftp in terms of raw speed.
Still needs those "few big items" though.
Linux distro iso for example.
-
That should do.
-
@marcinozga said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
Set up ftp server on that NAS and try to transfer a few big files. Hardly anything comes close to ftp in terms of raw speed.
Still needs those "few big items" though.
Linux distro iso for example.
yeah - I was asking earlier for a way to do this (Scott said use dd) so the OP doesn't have to download something first.
-
ok thank you guys, i think 200Mbs is ok now, better than 44Mbs
-
but still very less that what it's supposed to be
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
but still very less that what it's supposed to be
Define "what it is supposed to be?" What makes you feel that it should be faster?
-
Just for a quick reference, this is my latest iperf run between my workstation and the server. Network is 1GB with 2x1GB LAGs between each switch.
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)[ 4] local 192.168.0.20 port 5001 connected with 192.168.0.45 port 60691
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 683 MBytes 572 Mbits/sec
[ 5] local 192.168.0.20 port 5001 connected with 192.168.0.45 port 60715
[ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 680 MBytes 569 Mbits/secIt's a little slower than I'd like to see, but that's really not terrible for an in-use network. When everybody else is gone it does go up to the 800Mbits/sec transfer. This of course is not going to give any sort of real bearing on drive speed, just how fast the network can go.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
but still very less that what it's supposed to be
Define "what it is supposed to be?" What makes you feel that it should be faster?
Exactly - Until you test transfering a 4+ GB file so you have at least 1 min of sustained transfer on a single file you won't really know what you're getting.
As Scott mentioned, small files are the killer of SMB protocol.
