Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
zrav, k0nf1gt: Its funny... after that post of zambanini over 2 years ago I stopped coming back to this forum because I actually felt offended. I did not even saw the other posts by you guys later on. But thanks a lot if I would have seen them I am sure I would have stayed here.
The last two...
Since you do know that I am benchmarking wrong. And have no Idea about NFS and I am here to learn and you seam to know the right way. Why don't you enlighten my so call "lazy ass" (fauler sack)
@zambanini: thanks for the advice. I have been looking for the Intel DC P3700 (800GB) but I really like to first try out some stuff with the ESXi server. Can you also explain to my. Why I get 1.1 GByte/Sec on my NFS Store thru my Ubuntu Client. But on the ESXi Hypervisor I only get bloody 100 -...
@_Gea: I don't use physical LAN for this vSAN. Its all based on virtual Switches with no Physical Adapter. I can iperf over 20GBits... In a single thread.
@omniscence: Maybe u are right. But still the VMs on the mounted NFS store feel horrible slow... Can u tell me how I can messure the...
But how do other people solve this Issue. I can not belive I am the only person who thinks 100 MByte/Sec is to slow for even a ESXi Lab Whitebox... Especially if you have 8 SSDs inside...
Okay, I will do that. But is what I am trying even possibel? To use the NFS 1GByte/Sec I get back on my ESXi Host? Or should I just switch back the RAID controller to RAID Mode and use the Array directly in the Hypervisor?
I just tried to turn off the sync completly with sync=disabled on the test pool.
Result is 2x the speed... but far away from what I get from my VM...
/vmfs/volumes/32b6373b-96c1d255 # time sh -c "dd if=/dev/zero of=tempfile bs=1M
count=4096"
4096+0 records in
4096+0 records out
real 0m...
Is this "overflow protection (reservation, use max 90%)" the option for this? Or do I have to do that with one of these tools (hdat2, hdparm -N)?
I ran again some tests. On the napp-it appliance itself I get with compression around 2.0 - 2.2 GByte/Sec in DD Benchmarks. Around 1.0 - 1.2...
Well I gues I get what I paid for. In switzerland the MX100's where reallly really cheap. So I got them.
Do I have some playroom? Optimize it around 1.5 GByte Write?
There actually is no special use case for this Lab Box I will test diffrent server OS / Linux OS / etc. and create LAB Envoirments.
so I guess practice and theory does not really fitt... :)
Since in theory I should get double the write compared to what I get with RAID10... and I got half :) does not really make sense to me. Since 8 drives should be faster than 4 drives... but again theory... I do not really care about...
okay, I just did some test. I killed the RAID10 array, created a new RAIDZ2 array with my 8 Crucial MX100 512GB ssds
pool: Datastore
state: ONLINE
scan: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM CAP Product /napp-it IOstat...