Now that was satisfying... ~400MB/sec file copies

[VirtualLarry]

First time I had the opportunity to copy some ISO files between my Crucial M500 240GB and my now-primary PCI-E 3.0 x4 SSD.

Windows 7's File Copy dialog showed 400+MB/sec copy speeds, right up until nearly the end, then it dropped slightly below 400MB/sec.

Now that's satisfyingly speedy!

Edit: I'm used to copying ISO files from my SSD on my PC to my NAS, at something around 17-21MB/sec. (On a gigabit network, the NAS gets kind of bogged down.)

 

[XavierMace]

You're starting down a dangerous road now. I've yet to find a point where I go "I don't want any faster".

 

[dave_the_nerd]

First time I had the opportunity to copy some ISO files between my Crucial M500 240GB and my now-primary PCI-E 3.0 x4 SSD.

Windows 7's File Copy dialog showed 400+MB/sec copy speeds, right up until nearly the end, then it dropped slightly below 400MB/sec.

Now that's satisfyingly speedy!

Edit: I'm used to copying ISO files from my SSD on my PC to my NAS, at something around 17-21MB/sec. (On a gigabit network, the NAS gets kind of bogged down.)

Dude, what's wrong with your NAS?

 

[Essence_of_War]

Dude, what's wrong with your NAS?

Yeah, I was just about to ask that.

Basic file copy of large files on a Gbe network should be closer to 80-100 MB/s. Were the numbers you were quoting over wifi?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Yeah, I was just about to ask that.

Basic file copy of large files on a Gbe network should be closer to 80-100 MB/s. Were the numbers you were quoting over wifi?

Well... it wouldn't be abnormal for a very low-end NAS. (We don't usually think of file serving as a CPU intensive task, but some of those low end SoCs can really cramp your style.)

The old D-Link DNS-321 I had wasn't capable of pushing data much past 15MB/sec, and a lot of router-shared-USB-drive solutions are still <40MBps slow.

 

[frowertr]

You're starting down a dangerous road now. I've yet to find a point where I go "I don't want any faster".

You sure those aren't cached figures?

Try doing "dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync".

 

[dave_the_nerd]

You sure those aren't cached figures?

Try doing "dd bs=1M count=1024 if=/dev/zero of=test conv=fdatasync".

If he's got 40GB of RAM free for a cache on his system, he deserves some inflated numbers. ()🙂

'sides, between VMWare ram caching, ZFS ram caching, SAN ram caching, and all the other layers of performance optimization, it's darn near impossible to get real numbers with a synthetic benchmark anyways. Can't really bring myself to pay attention to anything that isn't an application benchmark anymore.

 

[frowertr]

If he's got 40GB of RAM free for a cache on his system, he deserves some inflated numbers. ()🙂

'sides, between VMWare ram caching, ZFS ram caching, SAN ram caching, and all the other layers of performance optimization, it's darn near impossible to get real numbers with a synthetic benchmark anyways. Can't really bring myself to pay attention to anything that isn't an application benchmark anymore.

LOL. Good catch. I didn't even see that 40GB!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Dude, what's wrong with your NAS?

BT? The more files I have on there, the more it slows down for just storing files.

Still, beats leaving the desktop machine to handle it. Sometimes I like to reboot my desktop.

Nominally, the NAS is closer to 80MB/sec reads, and like 50MB/sec writes. It's a RAID-1 mirror.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

BT? The more files I have on there, the more it slows down for just storing files.

Still, beats leaving the desktop machine to handle it. Sometimes I like to reboot my desktop.

Nominally, the NAS is closer to 80MB/sec reads, and like 50MB/sec writes. It's a RAID-1 mirror.

You use your NAS for BitTorrent? Ouch - that'll crush it, unless it's a _very_ beefy CPU.

Duct tape a RasPi2 to a USB hard drive for BitTorrent and occasionally sync it to your NAS. You'll be happier.

(Actually, with all your love of linux and cheap PCs... how are you not bolting RasPi2's to everything in the house?)