![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Hello,
I know this topic is sore and warn out but I have some questions I was hoping to get some direction on.
I am using ESXi 5.1 - I have nested a Nas4Free machine and passed through two LSI HBA cards.
I have the following drives
Controller one:
7x 2TB WD RED
Controller two:
3x1TB WD Black
1x1TB Seagate ST300 something drive - (it benches higher the the blacks with lower latency)
4x2TB WD Black
I want to use the 4 1TB drives in a Raidz1+0 or Raidz2. This will be for datastores on ESXi.
Raidz2 and two mirrors seem to give about the same performance, the mirrors getting slighly less sequential performance. (Currently on OpenIndiana NAPP-IT.) - Better NFS performance by far then on Nas4Free.
Controller one I tested as a Raidz2 (4+2), and (5+2) on Nas4Free. I was getting expected results when using the DD command in SSH and for each individual drive. But when using Samaba the max I could get was about 70-120 write and 140-170 read. This is more speed then I need because this array will just host media... but I don't understand why my writes are more at 170 and the reads at 300+. using all seven disks impacted write speed and made it drop 10 mbs or so. Read was the same of course.
I tried both configurations in Napp-It - the benchmarks don't really make much sens to me as the 7x2tb pool has better performance all around then the Raidz1+0. I guess it came down to the number of spindles. Maybe i need three mirrored pairs instead of two.
Anyhow SMB in napp-it is AWFUL. I get about 50mb read and 70 write.
I want to use the torrent client in Nas4Free so I will stick with using that the red pool but I just don't understand why SAMBA is not preforming better. I played with compression as well.
Testing NFS or creating a volume and using ISCSI in nas4free doesn't give any better performance.
Now, the "Tank" pool in Napp-it gives the same samaba performance as the other pool in napp-it, but with NFS it seems like I can read and write 150-250mbs when in a VM.
Why does SMB suck, and why is everything in my house windows based?
I know this topic is sore and warn out but I have some questions I was hoping to get some direction on.
I am using ESXi 5.1 - I have nested a Nas4Free machine and passed through two LSI HBA cards.
I have the following drives
Controller one:
7x 2TB WD RED
Controller two:
3x1TB WD Black
1x1TB Seagate ST300 something drive - (it benches higher the the blacks with lower latency)
4x2TB WD Black
I want to use the 4 1TB drives in a Raidz1+0 or Raidz2. This will be for datastores on ESXi.
Raidz2 and two mirrors seem to give about the same performance, the mirrors getting slighly less sequential performance. (Currently on OpenIndiana NAPP-IT.) - Better NFS performance by far then on Nas4Free.
Controller one I tested as a Raidz2 (4+2), and (5+2) on Nas4Free. I was getting expected results when using the DD command in SSH and for each individual drive. But when using Samaba the max I could get was about 70-120 write and 140-170 read. This is more speed then I need because this array will just host media... but I don't understand why my writes are more at 170 and the reads at 300+. using all seven disks impacted write speed and made it drop 10 mbs or so. Read was the same of course.
I tried both configurations in Napp-It - the benchmarks don't really make much sens to me as the 7x2tb pool has better performance all around then the Raidz1+0. I guess it came down to the number of spindles. Maybe i need three mirrored pairs instead of two.
Anyhow SMB in napp-it is AWFUL. I get about 50mb read and 70 write.
I want to use the torrent client in Nas4Free so I will stick with using that the red pool but I just don't understand why SAMBA is not preforming better. I played with compression as well.
Testing NFS or creating a volume and using ISCSI in nas4free doesn't give any better performance.
Now, the "Tank" pool in Napp-it gives the same samaba performance as the other pool in napp-it, but with NFS it seems like I can read and write 150-250mbs when in a VM.
Why does SMB suck, and why is everything in my house windows based?