You are not logged in.
My speed and reliability for network shares over NFS (SMB as well) is terrible. Speed tops out at at about 17-19MB/sec (stalls to 0kb/sec frequently where it stalls out most of the time.) according to windows when dropping files to storage server.
Network Cable Cat6 80ft overall length
Share created via zfs-dkms packages and not traditional way.
System up to date.
'More than a day' is a long time for 1.14TB to transfer on a local network.
Last edited by Nymmie (2020-01-25 18:30:01)
Offline
according to windows
?
Share created via zfs-dkms
?
Speed tops out at at about 17-19MB/sec
Sounds like a 100Mbit connection.
You'll have to provide faaaaar more details here - the apparent status quo is "windows says my network is slow, why?"
1. the network layout. What does "windows" (MS windows?) have to do with this? Is arch the server and windows the client or vv. or …?
2. The general connection. ethtool will tell you details on linux.
3. Whether it's actually an NFS thing, eg. if you run an ftp server (eg. vsftpd), can you upload faster on that protocol? What about SMB?
4. The actual NFS specifics (protocol version etcetc)
5. what the ZFS has to do with this. Is it your server FS? Can you upload faster to shares on tmpfs?
The overall distance is irrelevant, the maximum cable length could be, but not at 25m.
Once NFS is indeed determined as issue (and in general), I'd get windows out of the equation (notaby since it seems to index nfs shares whenever you alter them - at least on my last experience I was terribly unimpressed)
Offline
according to windows
?
Share created via zfs-dkms
?
Speed tops out at at about 17-19MB/sec
Sounds like a 100Mbit connection.
You'll have to provide faaaaar more details here - the apparent status quo is "windows says my network is slow, why?"
1. the network layout. What does "windows" (MS windows?) have to do with this? Is arch the server and windows the client or vv. or …?
Arch Server / Windows client due to holding Blu-ray Drive
2. The general connection. ethtool will tell you details on linux.
Settings for enp33s0:
Supported ports: [ TP MII ]
Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Supported pause frame use: Symmetric Receive-only
Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
Supported FEC modes: Not reported
Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Advertised pause frame use: Symmetric Receive-only
Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Advertised FEC modes: Not reported
Link partner advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Half 1000baseT/Full
Link partner advertised pause frame use: Symmetric
Link partner advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Link partner advertised FEC modes: Not reported
Speed: 1000Mb/s
Duplex: Full
Port: MII
PHYAD: 0
Transceiver: internal
Auto-negotiation: on
Supports Wake-on: pumbg
Wake-on: d
Current message level: 0x00000033 (51)
drv probe ifdown ifup
Link detected: yes
3. Whether it's actually an NFS thing, eg. if you run an ftp server (eg. vsftpd), can you upload faster on that protocol? What about SMB?
No FTP server, SMB same speed and cutout issues
4. The actual NFS specifics (protocol version etcetc)
[root@Templar-Archives ~]# nfsstat
Server rpc stats:
calls badcalls badfmt badauth badclnt
212790 406 406 0 0Server nfs v3:
null getattr setattr lookup access
433 0% 4564 2% 204 0% 10517 4% 124 0%
readlink read write create mkdir
337 0% 17788 8% 165625 77% 208 0% 43 0%
symlink mknod remove rmdir rename
0 0% 0 0% 77 0% 9 0% 1 0%
link readdir readdirplus fsstat fsinfo
0 0% 4366 2% 7750 3% 430 0% 21 0%
pathconf commit
21 0% 287 0%
5. what the ZFS has to do with this. Is it your server FS? Can you upload faster to shares on tmpfs?
ZFS is /home FS, ZFS created the share 'zfs set sharenfs=on Home/****' opposed to the 'normal' way
The overall distance is irrelevant, the maximum cable length could be, but not at 25m.
Once NFS is indeed determined as issue (and in general), I'd get windows out of the equation (notaby since it seems to index nfs shares whenever you alter them - at least on my last experience I was terribly unimpressed)
Windows is only one with UI So i'd like to keep in my workflow as I also use for gaming
Last edited by Nymmie (2020-01-25 14:05:46)
Offline
Please use code tags, not quote tags, for shell IO and file contents (makes it easier to read) - because of the spurious quote tag, you should clean up your previous post anyway (there's an edit link on the lowe right)
due to holding Blu-ray Drive
Does that mean you're uploading from the BR?
In case, try to upload from the HDD
Linux is on 1000MB/full duplex, did you check the windows ethernet status dialog?
No FTP server, SMB same speed and cutout issues
ZFS is /home FS
Can you upload faster to shares on tmpfs?
You could also just install vdftpd for a test, but since SMB is equally affected, the protocol is probably irrelevant anyway (please edit your initial post and adjust the subject itr.)
Windows is only one with UI So i'd like to keep in my workflow as I also use for gaming
The point is not to give up on windows but to remove the windows system from the equation to isolate the problem.
How fast is your internet connection? > 100MBit?
Can you download faster from the internet to the linux server?
wget -O /dev/null http://speedtest.newark.linode.com/100MB-newark.bin # /dev/null to avoid local FS limits
wget -O ~/testfile.bin http://speedtest.newark.linode.com/100MB-newark.bin # and into your ZFS for comparism
You can use one of "atlanta", "dallas", "frankfurt", "fremont", "london", "mumbai1", "newark", "singapore", "tokyo2", "toronto1" - depending on your location.
Offline
Please use code tags, not quote tags, for shell IO and file contents (makes it easier to read) - because of the spurious quote tag, you should clean up your previous post anyway (there's an edit link on the lowe right)
Sure, will do.
Does that mean you're uploading from the BR?
In case, try to upload from the HDD
File Transfer is from HDD not BR
Linux is on 1000MB/full duplex, did you check the windows ethernet status dialog?
Windows shows as Full Duplex 1000MB
How fast is your internet connection? > 100MBit?
Paying for 150mb up/10mb down but get more in the realm of 280mb up/18mb down
Can you download faster from the internet to the linux server?
to /null
[ryan@Templar-Archives Movies]$ wget -O /dev/null http://speedtest.newark.linode.com/100MB-toronto1.bin
Will not apply HSTS. The HSTS database must be a regular and non-world-writable file.
ERROR: could not open HSTS store at '/home/ryan/.wget-hsts'. HSTS will be disabled.
--2020-01-25 08:29:10-- http://speedtest.newark.linode.com/100MB-toronto1.bin
Resolving speedtest.newark.linode.com (speedtest.newark.linode.com)... 2600:3c03::4b, 50.116.57.237
Connecting to speedtest.newark.linode.com (speedtest.newark.linode.com)|2600:3c03::4b|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: '/dev/null'
/dev/null 100%[====================================================================================================================================================================================================>] 100.00M 23.6MB/s in 4.8s
2020-01-25 08:29:15 (21.0 MB/s) - '/dev/null' saved [104857600/104857600]
to Zpool /home/ryan
[ryan@Templar-Archives Movies]$ wget -O ~/testfile.bin http://speedtest.newark.linode.com/100MB-toronto1.bin
Will not apply HSTS. The HSTS database must be a regular and non-world-writable file.
ERROR: could not open HSTS store at '/home/ryan/.wget-hsts'. HSTS will be disabled.
--2020-01-25 08:43:36-- http://speedtest.newark.linode.com/100MB-toronto1.bin
Resolving speedtest.newark.linode.com (speedtest.newark.linode.com)... 2600:3c03::4b, 50.116.57.237
Connecting to speedtest.newark.linode.com (speedtest.newark.linode.com)|2600:3c03::4b|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 104857600 (100M) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: '/home/ryan/testfile.bin'
/home/ryan/testfile.bin 100%[====================================================================================================================================================================================================>] 100.00M 566KB/s in 2m 51s
2020-01-25 08:46:27 (600 KB/s) - '/home/ryan/testfile.bin' saved [104857600/104857600]
ZFS tuning issue? 12 drive raidz2 array ashift=12 all drives identical model
Offline
ZFS tuning issue?
I guess it's safe to say that ZFS is the limiting factor here, but I know nothing about that FS (except that Torvalds doesn't like it ;-).
You should alter the subject of your initial post and report it to be moved into the kernel & HW forum.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ZFS
To be sure: it would have been http://speedtest.toronto1.linode.com/100MB-toronto1.bin (but it doesn't matter)
Offline
Mod note: ZFS isn't an Arch-provided package. Moving to AUR Issues.
Please update your topic title to attract the users who know about ZFS.
Sakura:-
Mobo: MSI MAG X570S TORPEDO MAX // Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @4.9GHz // GFX: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT // RAM: 32GB (4x 8GB) Corsair DDR4 (@ 3000MHz) // Storage: 1x 3TB HDD, 6x 1TB SSD, 2x 120GB SSD, 1x 275GB M2 SSD
Making lemonade from lemons since 2015.
Offline
Since kernel 5.0 ZFS was slowed down due to the removal of some SIMD APIs. The fix for that is available in zfs 0.8.3, but the AUR package zfs-dkms is still on 0.8.2. That might be one of the causes for bad ZFS performance.
https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/commi … 4e17bfee19
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page= … oring-SIMD
| alias CUTF='LANG=en_XX.UTF-8@POSIX ' |
Offline
Since kernel 5.0 ZFS was slowed down due to the removal of some SIMD APIs. The fix for that is available in zfs 0.8.3, but the AUR package zfs-dkms is still on 0.8.2. That might be one of the causes for bad ZFS performance.
https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/commi … 4e17bfee19
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page= … oring-SIMD
OK, I'll set aside some time tomorrow to switch to 0.8.3 to test. Unable to do so now.
And topic has now been updated.
Offline
ZFS 0.8.3 did not fix the issue in speed or reliability, though i do get about 2MB/sec faster data transfer to the shares on system.
Offline