Horrible Performance

Discussion on setting up QNAP NAS products.
rbeuke
Starting out
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 2:50 am

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by rbeuke » Wed May 23, 2018 11:47 am

I have also seen some other tests where 6 bay synology array's with the atom processor got in excess of 1000 MB sequential. but they were using intel nics so perhaps that is still a problem, i would have thought the tvs-673e amd proc was better than an atom, as it benched higher than an i5 in some other tests i had seen.

User avatar
Trexx
Experience counts
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:50 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by Trexx » Wed May 23, 2018 10:33 pm

rbeuke wrote:So it appears that it is a cable issue!!! Now i assume that the reason im not getting the 800 MB Read/ 600 MB Write throughput that im getting internal to the array is the cat5e cable vs a cat6 or cat7 cable?

Also is there any recommendation on wether you should set the SMB version to 2.1 vs 3? Looks like 3 did slightly better on the Random 4k with 32 threads test.


Use SMB3 as it provide for faster performance as well as some other features to make file manipulation more efficient when rearranging data on the file system via SMB Shared Folders.
Paul

Model: TS-877-1600 FW: 4.4.1.x
QTier (HDD): [RAID-5] 6 x 3TB HGST DeskStar NAS QTier (SSD): [RAID-1] 2 x 1TB WD Blue m.2's
(SSD): [RAID-1] 2 x 500GB Evo 860
RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury 64GB DDR4-2666
GPU: EVGA GTX 1060, ACX 2.0(1 Fan), 6GB
UPS: CyberPower AVR1350 Ext. Backup: USB 3.0 Seagate 5TB
Media Boxes: Nvidia ShieldTV Pro, AppleTV 4k, Various Roku's

Model: TVS-673 32GB FW: 4.4.1.x Test/Backup Box
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAS RAID Rebuild Times | Live QTS Videos | | QNAP NAS Guide | Information needed when you ask for HELP | QNAP Links, Tutorials, etc.
2018 Plex NAS Compatibility Guide | QNAP Plex FAQ | Moogle's QNAP Faq

User avatar
Trexx
Experience counts
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:50 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by Trexx » Wed May 23, 2018 10:41 pm

rbeuke wrote:I have also seen some other tests where 6 bay synology array's with the atom processor got in excess of 1000 MB sequential. but they were using intel nics so perhaps that is still a problem, i would have thought the tvs-673e amd proc was better than an atom, as it benched higher than an i5 in some other tests i had seen.


Based on your previous tests, the issue isn't the CPU, but the speed/perf. of your HDD's.

Code: Select all

[~] # qcli_storage -t
fio test command for LV layer: /sbin/fio --filename=test_device --direct=0 --rw= read --bs=1M --runtime=15 --name=test-read --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=32 &>/tmp /qcli_storage.log
fio test command for File system: /sbin/fio --directory=test_device --direct=0 - -rw=read --bs=1M --runtime=15 --name=test-read --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=32 -- size=128m &>/tmp/qcli_storage.log
Start testing!
Performance test is finished 100.000%...
VolID VolName Pool Mapping_Name Throughput Mount_Path FS_Throughput
1 Storage 1 /dev/mapper/cachedev1 812.84 MB/s /share/CACHEDEV1_DATA 600.94 MB/s
[~] #


This test is directly on the NAS itself and will be the best you will see regardless of NIC, etc. You are getting roughly 135MB/sec. from spinning disk which is actually pretty good.

Keep in mind throughput numbers will vary depending on testing methodology and parameters (sequential vs. random, block size, cache hit within drive, etc.). So don't get too worked up about 1 benchmark without knowing ALL the details/methodology behind it.
Paul

Model: TS-877-1600 FW: 4.4.1.x
QTier (HDD): [RAID-5] 6 x 3TB HGST DeskStar NAS QTier (SSD): [RAID-1] 2 x 1TB WD Blue m.2's
(SSD): [RAID-1] 2 x 500GB Evo 860
RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury 64GB DDR4-2666
GPU: EVGA GTX 1060, ACX 2.0(1 Fan), 6GB
UPS: CyberPower AVR1350 Ext. Backup: USB 3.0 Seagate 5TB
Media Boxes: Nvidia ShieldTV Pro, AppleTV 4k, Various Roku's

Model: TVS-673 32GB FW: 4.4.1.x Test/Backup Box
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAS RAID Rebuild Times | Live QTS Videos | | QNAP NAS Guide | Information needed when you ask for HELP | QNAP Links, Tutorials, etc.
2018 Plex NAS Compatibility Guide | QNAP Plex FAQ | Moogle's QNAP Faq

User avatar
storageman
Experience counts
Posts: 4927
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:57 pm

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by storageman » Thu May 24, 2018 12:04 am

Go off these but look they tested on SSDs
https://www.qnap.com/en/product_x_perfo ... pe=&II=255

rbeuke
Starting out
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 2:50 am

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by rbeuke » Thu May 24, 2018 5:13 am

Hmm ok, well the main reason for this is to use as a primary storage for working off of for photography editing and for occasional video editing. i was really hoping to get closer to the 800 MB read and 600 MB write level at the lowest but im not really there.

Perhaps i should have spend the extra money and purchased the Ryzen version, but i guess it would also still be limited to the spinning drives, granted i could have easily thrown two SSD in the 2.5 inch bays for a cache or storage tier.

So i have the two NVMe m.2 slots on the NIC and the two Sata m.2 slots in the array itself. What is everyone's experience with setting up either a Qtier ssd tier and a R/W cache on maybe the NVME or the SSD m.2? Do you think either of those options would get my numbers up closer to what they got with their all ssd test?

rbeuke
Starting out
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 2:50 am

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by rbeuke » Thu May 24, 2018 5:19 am

BTW I actually ran another test and it looks like each individual drive is getting around 220 MB, but the raid throughput is 761 MB/s. I guess i was at least hoping to get close to that, but like mentioned above that may be impossible without SSD.

SSHInternalStorageTest.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Bob Zelin
Been there, done that
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:55 am
Location: Orlando, FL.
Contact:

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by Bob Zelin » Thu May 24, 2018 6:00 am

Hi Rbeuke -
boy, with all of my posts about video editing - WHY would you purchase a 6 drive system like the TVS-673e ?
I can only tell you this. I have setup and installed a TVS-873e with a QNAP LAN-10G2T-X550 10G card. Using both an iMac with Sonnet Solo 10G thunderbolt 3 to 10G adaptor, and using a thunderbolt 3 MacBook Pro, using the same Sonnet Solo 10G adaptor, I get over 550 MB/sec WRITE and about 1000 MB/sec READ. The configuration uses SMB3 connection. Tests were done with both AJA System Test and Blackmagic Disk Speed Test.
Drives were Seagate IronWolf Pro drives 10TB - all drives were in a static volume RAID 5 group. The performance was GREAT - enough for any 4K video editing. If your system is not configured correctly, only then do you get horrible performance. And you have not stated exactly what 10G card you are using in your TVS-673e. The tests I did were with the QNAP LAN-10G2T-X550. QNAP has just released the new QXG-10G1T, which is compatible with this product. However, if you are using the horrible QNAP LAN-10G1TA which has the Tehuti 10G chip on it - well, you will get crappy performance. You have not stated anything about your client computers, and what 10G adaptors you are using, and you have not stated if you have enabled jumbo frames. Al I am reading from you is that "this product **" and "I am getting horrible performance". The product works great if it is setup correctly. I am more than happy to feed you as many details as you need - right here. Ask away.

Bob Zelin
Bob Zelin / Rescue 1, Inc.
http://www.bobzelin.com

rbeuke
Starting out
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 2:50 am

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by rbeuke » Thu May 24, 2018 6:37 am

@ Bob Zelin

I never came to this forum before i purchased the TVS-673e, but the majority of our work is photography lightroom/ photoshop, with occaisional video editing not much there, just for fun really. I would be exstatic with 1000 MB READ and 550 MB Write! If you can lead me to a config that does that i will be so grateful!

I did post some of this info in the first page of the thread about the setup and the cards etc but ill post them again below.


Client machine: Windows 10, i7 i4770k @3.5 GHz, 32 GB RAM, ASUS 10 GbE Nic (ASUS XG-C100C)
NAS: 6x 6 TB Ironwolf drives, 10 GbE NIC (QNAP QM2-2P10G1T)

Client and NAS are direct connected. Yes i have enabled jumbo frames on both the client and NAS and enabled SMB3.

Are those nics horrible? I appoligize if im asking questions after the fact!

User avatar
storageman
Experience counts
Posts: 4927
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:57 pm

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by storageman » Thu May 24, 2018 3:44 pm

If you want the best 10GbE performance use SFP+ not 10Gbase-T.
As I previously stated, I'm not mad about your Asus card.

rbeuke
Starting out
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 2:50 am

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by rbeuke » Thu May 24, 2018 8:17 pm

@ Bob Zelin

In addition to the above information provided for you to look over. Another note about my setup. Initially i had a cat6 crossover cable as i thought thats what i needed for a direct connected setup, but the performance was bad. Then i swapped the cable for a normal cat5 patch cable and started getting better results. But i thought that maybe that cable was limiting the performance.

I then get a different cat6 patch cable and cat6 crossover cable to see if the initial crossover was bad. BOTH the new cat6 crossover and the cat6 straight are giving me the same poor performance as the initial cat6 crossover so that is really throwing me for a loop.

What do you typically need these days for direct attached nas connections? A crossover or a patch cable?

Ryan

Bob Zelin
Been there, done that
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:55 am
Location: Orlando, FL.
Contact:

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by Bob Zelin » Thu May 24, 2018 9:12 pm

NO ONE needs to use a cross over cable. Period. You need a nice, boring cheap Cat 6 cable. QNAP provides FREE Cat 6 cabling with the 10G cards, that you can use for testing. At your convenience you can mail order longer Cat 6 cables. A Cat6 cable will work up to full performance for up to 55 meters (about 180'). If you need to go beyond 100 meters, simply get a more expensive Cat 6A cable. Every mail order company sells cheap Cat6 and Cat6A cables. You do not need any special cables. Companies like Amazon, B&H Photo, Newegg, etc. Once you put in the correct cable - and you are still getting poor results, just write back. Again, you have to follow my rules. Single Static Volume, all drives Raided together. Forget the SSD's and M.2 SATAs. With a 10G connection, you will get all the speed you need for video editing.

Bob Zelin
Bob Zelin / Rescue 1, Inc.
http://www.bobzelin.com

rbeuke
Starting out
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 2:50 am

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by rbeuke » Thu May 24, 2018 10:18 pm

@ Bob Zelin

Ok so i had it setup as default so it chose to create a storage pool and a "Thick multiple Volume" how much difference have you seen in performance for Static vs Thick multiple Volume in a storage pool?

In addition to the cable that ill swap out again i guess i can try it both ways if i have to.. ** as some data is already on it and would have to be smoked :(

User avatar
Trexx
Experience counts
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:50 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by Trexx » Thu May 24, 2018 10:39 pm

rbeuke wrote:In addition to the cable that ill swap out again i guess i can try it both ways if i have to.. ** as some data is already on it and would have to be smoked :(


You shouldn't have to "smoke" any data. You SHOULD have to back it up though. If you haven't thought about an external backup strategy, you need to add that to your list of things to FIX. Depending on how much CRITICAL data you have, it could be as simple as an external 8TB USB 3.x drive. Others with larger backup needs may get one of the 10GbE Arm based models to replicate the data to for backup.

Either way, unless you have copies of your critical data somewhere besides the NAS, you are at risk. RAID is NOT backup. Also get a good UPS as well for the NAS if you don't have one.
Paul

Model: TS-877-1600 FW: 4.4.1.x
QTier (HDD): [RAID-5] 6 x 3TB HGST DeskStar NAS QTier (SSD): [RAID-1] 2 x 1TB WD Blue m.2's
(SSD): [RAID-1] 2 x 500GB Evo 860
RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury 64GB DDR4-2666
GPU: EVGA GTX 1060, ACX 2.0(1 Fan), 6GB
UPS: CyberPower AVR1350 Ext. Backup: USB 3.0 Seagate 5TB
Media Boxes: Nvidia ShieldTV Pro, AppleTV 4k, Various Roku's

Model: TVS-673 32GB FW: 4.4.1.x Test/Backup Box
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAS RAID Rebuild Times | Live QTS Videos | | QNAP NAS Guide | Information needed when you ask for HELP | QNAP Links, Tutorials, etc.
2018 Plex NAS Compatibility Guide | QNAP Plex FAQ | Moogle's QNAP Faq

rbeuke
Starting out
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 2:50 am

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by rbeuke » Thu May 24, 2018 11:58 pm

Thanks, i wasn't clear I have 3 copies of the data, My data i use today on my internal drives in my pc which i coped to the Nas as well, a backup on a DAS raid1 array, and in the cloud at crashplan... just didnt want to have to copy the data all over again since it took a day to move it to the NAS from my current internal drives.

I was really more keen on whether or not a static volume is x % faster than a Thick multiple volume in the pool since i had alredy did a "rookie move" and copied my data over thinking it would just work fast without my current issues!

User avatar
storageman
Experience counts
Posts: 4927
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:57 pm

Re: Horrible Performance

Post by storageman » Fri May 25, 2018 8:23 pm

Bear in mind Static volumes can't span expansion units.

Post Reply

Return to “Turbo Station Installation & Setup”