Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Software > Operating Systems

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-25-2012, 12:44 PM   #51
MichaelD
Lifer
 
MichaelD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Halfway There
Posts: 31,506
Default

I posted the question over the 2012 Essentials forum. We'll see what they come up with.
MichaelD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 04:10 PM   #52
dbailey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 337
Default

Did you check your network settings and ensure the nic isn't set to run at 10mb? You can try some of those settings or perhaps another network driver?
dbailey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 09:27 PM   #53
MichaelD
Lifer
 
MichaelD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Halfway There
Posts: 31,506
Default The fix for abysmal network transfer speeds

I had to disable SMB Signing (I didn't know what that was until tonight )

I followed this guide, disabled SMB Signing in the Computer Management GPO for both the server and client and now I get 81+MB/s! That's pretty smokin' for a Gigabit network.

http://mctexpert.blogspot.com/2011/0...b-signing.html
MichaelD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 09:46 PM   #54
Kingbee13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRGE View Post
Okay. That's the RTM version. I was just afraid you had installed the older Beta or RC.

Good to know. I'm still struggling to figure out why parity writes are as slow as they are; if it's not a CPU bottleneck then it seems to me that they should be writing at the speed of the slowest drive. Unless WS2012E is doing a poor job of avoiding skipping around to different slabs.

Oh, and if you do add a 5th drive, keep in mind that W2012E apparently doesn't have an automatic rebalance function. To the best of my knowledge you have to create a new storage space and move all of your data to that space in order to get existing data balanced across all of the drives.
hmm interesting, its a shame that you cant remove a drive, well other than breaking the storage and hoping the parity does it's job. I wonder if new data would be written to the new drive since the others are equal, until it catches up

Edit: I was really spoiled with WHSv1 with auto balancing, drive removal, and selective mirroring. I never ran into any corrupted data issues either. Oh well still much better than WHS2011, 1 step forward 2 steps back I suppose.

Last edited by Kingbee13; 10-25-2012 at 09:52 PM.
Kingbee13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 11:04 PM   #55
destrekor
Lifer
 
destrekor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: It's turtles all the way down!
Posts: 23,925
Default

I've never really played around much with Windows Server.

Let's say I can get a legal license (student) for Windows Server 2012. Can I run that in the same way I'd run a Windows 8 desktop?

Granted, for a $40 upgrade license for Win 8 Pro, it's not breaking the bank at all. But, 0<40, and I like free. I know I could do a whole lot more (I'm lost trying to visualize how I could make the most out of the 2012 Datacenter version - let alone Standard) than with a basic desktop version. But can I, at the minimum, operate it completely like it were Windows 8 on a desktop?

It'd give me the ability to play with HyperV and whatnot, and group policies, which would be cool. But ultimately, it acting like a Windows 8 desktop, with no difference in performance, would be the goal in this scenario. Possible?
__________________
"Spaceman + Goosemaster + Nemesis 1 =
Well if chicken curtain up with how glue general of should the sternum." - Jeff7
BUY MY STUFF! [Wacom Create, Bionic, G13, Nook Color] MY STUFF, YOU WANT TO BUY IT!
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
destrekor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 11:18 PM   #56
thecoolnessrune
Diamond Member
 
thecoolnessrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Stoughton, WI
Posts: 8,328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subyman View Post
How does this compare to Nexentastor? I wouldn't mind moving to Windows Server due to support.
Not nearly the same thing. NexentaStor is a block and file virtualized storage system, same as Compellant, NetApp, or EMC storage devices. NexentaStor provides a raw storage pool for shared file storage (CIFS, NFS, etc.) as well as block storage for LUNs (SCSI targets).

Nexenta and other virtualized storage systems completely manage the storage aspect including data protection (RAID Z1, Z2, etc.), replication (mirroring), backup (VTL and Tape archiving), and high availability (multiple node management).

Windows Server, on the other hand, is simply a server operating system that provides multiple server functions. Its storage functions are limited but you *can* use them both to get the best of both worlds. You can run Windows Server 2012 either on a virtual storage pool or use the built in iSCSI target feature to put your storage pool on the virtual storage system.

I have personally tested Windows Server 2012 as an ESXi Virtual Machine running from a Nexenta storage pool (18TB, RAID Z2) over Infiniband using SRP and have had great results with it.
__________________
Sabrina Online!
Jay Naylor Illustrations! (Language and some situations NSFW)

I'm for poop.
thecoolnessrune is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 08:47 PM   #57
Kingbee13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 218
Default

One more post to illustrate the transfer I'm getting with storage spaces on my server, it appears that files copied to the server are getting cached in the server ram. The copy starts out at a good clip but devolves into the horrible speeds I got when loading the space. I copied the largest file I had from my desktop the guild wars 2 dat file ~16gigs.

note the top part of the image is from the workstation and the task manager is from the server using remote desktop.



The second transfer is from the server to the workstation using the WS2012E iso file



You'll notice the server ram usage has dropped significantly in the second image. As I said it seems copying to the array is a hard drive or storage space limitation but it caches to ram and delays the parity writes, at leas that's my theory on why it starts out fast and drops to such a dismal rate at several gigs. I feel the performance is OK as I'll rarely copy anything to the server larger than an iso image so the performance in day to day usage will be fine.
Kingbee13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 01:22 AM   #58
ViRGE
Super Moderator
Elite Member
 
ViRGE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 30,233
Default

It's normal for Windows Server to buffer writes using RAM. It's done that for ages; even WHSv1 does it. That said it's not delaying parity writes, it's just that with a large enough file you reach the buffer limit (i.e. all available RAM), at which point you can only push more data into the buffer as fast as it can write out, which is the speed your system writes out to the parity storage space.

When I build my new Essentials server I'm definitely going with 16GB of RAM for precisely this reason.
__________________
ViRGE
Team Anandtech: Assimilating a computer near you!
GameStop - An upscale specialized pawnshop that happens to sell new games on the side
Todd the Wraith: On Fruit Bowls - I hope they prove [to be] as delicious as the farmers who grew them

Last edited by ViRGE; 10-27-2012 at 01:28 AM.
ViRGE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 08:09 AM   #59
Kingbee13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRGE View Post
It's normal for Windows Server to buffer writes using RAM. It's done that for ages; even WHSv1 does it. That said it's not delaying parity writes, it's just that with a large enough file you reach the buffer limit (i.e. all available RAM), at which point you can only push more data into the buffer as fast as it can write out, which is the speed your system writes out to the parity storage space.

When I build my new Essentials server I'm definitely going with 16GB of RAM for precisely this reason.
Oh that's good to know, at least I did double the ram from WHS2011. Overall I do like storage spaces, although it makes me nervous using a v1 of something like this, but I can only assume Microsoft feels its fairly robust since they included it in windows 8.
Kingbee13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 09:21 AM   #60
ViRGE
Super Moderator
Elite Member
 
ViRGE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 30,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbee13 View Post
Oh that's good to know, at least I did double the ram from WHS2011. Overall I do like storage spaces, although it makes me nervous using a v1 of something like this, but I can only assume Microsoft feels its fairly robust since they included it in windows 8.
WHS v1 was not without its teething problems despite Microsoft's seal of approval, but in the end it worked quite well. As for 2012E, if you want to be really cutting edge use Storage Spaces with the new ReFS file system.
__________________
ViRGE
Team Anandtech: Assimilating a computer near you!
GameStop - An upscale specialized pawnshop that happens to sell new games on the side
Todd the Wraith: On Fruit Bowls - I hope they prove [to be] as delicious as the farmers who grew them
ViRGE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 12:31 PM   #61
JackMDS
Super Moderator
Elite Member
 
JackMDS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 26,444
Default

http://bink.nu/windows-server-2012-e...ally-available


__________________
Jack
Microsoft, MVP - Networking.
JackMDS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 04:51 PM   #62
ViRGE
Super Moderator
Elite Member
 
ViRGE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 30,233
Default

Hooray!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...2%20essentials

*looks at price*

Oh dear.
__________________
ViRGE
Team Anandtech: Assimilating a computer near you!
GameStop - An upscale specialized pawnshop that happens to sell new games on the side
Todd the Wraith: On Fruit Bowls - I hope they prove [to be] as delicious as the farmers who grew them
ViRGE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 05:16 PM   #63
JackMDS
Super Moderator
Elite Member
 
JackMDS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 26,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRGE View Post

*looks at price*

Oh dear.
Yikes! That is even more than the MSRP.

If One needs it for business few $$ more will not break the bank.

For personal use I would wait a little more, once it gets into the distributions channel and become available from variety of OEM retailers the price will probably go bellow $400.



__________________
Jack
Microsoft, MVP - Networking.
JackMDS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 07:37 PM   #64
MichaelD
Lifer
 
MichaelD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Halfway There
Posts: 31,506
Default

Yeah; $400+ is a bit too dear. I'm planning on buying a Technet subscription and getting mine that way. Cheaper and I get all of Technet as well. In the meantime, my Trial Version is humming along nicely. Still not happy that you can't move Server backups to other drives (short of Ghosting the physical HD to another physical HD) but so far it's running really well on just 4GB of RAM.
MichaelD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 07:38 PM   #65
ViRGE
Super Moderator
Elite Member
 
ViRGE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 30,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelD View Post
Yeah; $400+ is a bit too dear. I'm planning on buying a Technet subscription and getting mine that way. Cheaper and I get all of Technet as well. In the meantime, my Trial Version is humming along nicely. Still not happy that you can't move Server backups to other drives (short of Ghosting the physical HD to another physical HD) but so far it's running really well on just 4GB of RAM.
Keep in mind that Technet is for evaluation only. If you're not evaluating it then you're violating your license. Furthermore you are required to discontinue your use of all Technet software if your subscription ever lapses.
__________________
ViRGE
Team Anandtech: Assimilating a computer near you!
GameStop - An upscale specialized pawnshop that happens to sell new games on the side
Todd the Wraith: On Fruit Bowls - I hope they prove [to be] as delicious as the farmers who grew them
ViRGE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 07:48 PM   #66
MichaelD
Lifer
 
MichaelD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Halfway There
Posts: 31,506
Default

Yup, I understand those terms.
MichaelD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 04:31 PM   #67
Shftup
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Regina, Sask., Canada
Posts: 163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelD View Post
I had to disable SMB Signing (I didn't know what that was until tonight )

I followed this guide, disabled SMB Signing in the Computer Management GPO for both the server and client and now I get 81+MB/s! That's pretty smokin' for a Gigabit network.

http://mctexpert.blogspot.com/2011/0...b-signing.html
Interesting find.
Can this be used for server 2008r2 and Win 7 clients?

TIA
Shftup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 03:31 PM   #68
MichaelD
Lifer
 
MichaelD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Halfway There
Posts: 31,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shftup View Post
Interesting find.
Can this be used for server 2008r2 and Win 7 clients?

TIA
It's my understanding that SMB Signing has been around since a latter service pack with Server NT, and in every server OS since then. Also as I understand it, SMB Signing is only turned on by default in Domain Controllers. The reason I didn't have this problem back when running Server 2003 was that I had no domain at home; I was using Server 2003 as a file/print server only. Server 2012 Essentials forces you to have a domain by default. So, SMB is turned on by default, ergo my problem. Hope this helps.
MichaelD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.