Is 60 MB/s to a SMB share on a different server on the same 1 Gbps local network a good speed?

Is 60 MB/s to a SMB share on a different server on the same 1 Gbps local network a good speed?

Attached: 1508859854964.png (200x200, 80K)

Other urls found in this thread:

askubuntu.com/questions/7976/how-do-you-test-the-network-speed-between-two-boxes
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Yes

Shouldn't I be hitting 100 MB/s because I'm using RAID10 with 4 drives?

Yes, probably there are two things to consider here. A network bottleneck, or a drive performance bottleneck. I'm sure your drives can do 1gbps, but you have to consider the performance of each drive. More likely is just a network and SMB performance restriction. If your network has a wireless link, this speed is probably very good for an Ethernet network because 1gbps wireless is insanely difficult because of packet loss over distance in real world scenarios. If it is all wired, then you should verify that all your Ethernet cards and cables are 1gbps rated, and if they all are then try to cut out any other possible network congestion. Realistically, if this is a multi-user network with many devices active, 480MBps is very good.

In my other reply, I meant 480mbps not 480MBps

I've hit 90MB/s with my freenas server running zfs before. That's pretty close. The only other thing I could do for that is make aggragated network links to my switch for 2Gb/s

i can get over 90 from my ssd based pc to my hdd based network share via regular gigabit.

sounds like a bottleneck

No.

GBE should be around 120MB/s. One single drive might be 150MB/s and raid 10 (why use that, use RAID 5 or 6) shouldn't make it that much worse unless you're doing something horrid.

You should use smb3 or later though.

my 4 drives is barely at 50%... and my switch is new, but how do I check the network bandwidth?

how do i make sure freenas and my windows client is using smb3 only? also why raidz2? raid10 is better performance + a bit more space than raidz2

how?

igb0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 options=6403bb
inet 192.168.1.85 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
nd6 options=9
media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT )
status: active

1000baseT, that's 1 Gbps, this is weird... I should easily hit 100+ Mb/s

50% drive usage is ok. You will rarely ever have a network setup that can exceed drive speeds, except in a very short distance direct machine-to-machine connection with multiple NICs.

Here is a link to test speed. askubuntu.com/questions/7976/how-do-you-test-the-network-speed-between-two-boxes

Pic related also does 90MB/s off a single drive without anything impressive to it.

ZFS RAID performed miserably when I tested it. Can't really help you fix that.
I was thinking RAID5/6 on mdadm or a hw controller or whatever.

No, they do not use more space than RAID10 on a 4 drive array.

But you can ensure it is using smb3 or later by disallowing anything else on the server's samba configuration.

Attached: I810851.1-ODROID-HC2-Einplatinen-Computer-fuer-NAS-und-Cluster-Anwendungen.jpg (600x450, 24K)

i can't find any option in freenas to enable smbv3

i wanna fuck 10-tan

PS: It is still easily possible that your raidz10 isn't too slow here. Miserably is relative to what the array could have done. Not really worse than one single drive.

No. 1000baset is a 1gbps cable. 100+MBps on an IP network over that cable is far from easy. Max speed is 125MB THEORETICALLY, but there is packet loss and data required to be used for tcp sequences and headers etc

Windows to Linux? That's the average speed I've been getting too.
Linux to Linux? Something seems off.

windows to *bsd

more pics

Attached: 1491606529958.jpg (1032x948, 294K)

smb.conf, client min protocol = SMB3

At least I think it was exactly the same on BSD; I might remember wrong though.

oh now that i look at it, it seems to be a RAM issue

I'm this guy
I just have one 8GB stick of ecc. I hit those speeds while doing transfers to and from a win 7 machine like 2 or 3 years ago.
How new is samba3? I should probably look into that

I'm basically transferring 830 GB of pictures and 627 GB songs, so I think it's fine to hit 60-70 MB/s with 16 GB of RAM

Are you retard?
Oh yes you retard.

What in the fuck. A gigabit LAN should get you 100 megabytes a sec if the network is not congested.

No I am not retarded thankfully. A gigabit LAN is difficult to get above 800Mbps max, ~700 avg realistically in my experience, especially with samba and windows machines, which is what OP is using

I'm also using mircotik router which required some configuration to do raw switching for faster speeds.

completely standard config, cheap pc with the cheapest Gigabit NIC i could find running debian, connected via a cheap netgear hub with cheap ebay cables.

no reason you shouldn't be able to get close to 100mb/s

just tested at 110MB/s+

Attached: evidence.png (2561x1440, 1.69M)

do it with 800 gb of images

Linux or *bsd client and server should give you near wire speed on gbe.

But yes, that performance is good for windows to linux.

Hey is that you soyboy?

70-80MB/s copying images
probably not

Oh, something else to consider is that by doing a lot of small files, you'll have overhead between each one as opposed to very large ones. Just something else to consider which will be directly proportional to what you're doing

Soyboy it is you! I missed you and your soyness.

Attached: 1514925782411.jpg (400x400, 28K)