Slow transfer speeds on gigabit ethernet

[Ikon]

Paste it into the CLI (if you can), or use something like Putty.

Here is a screenshot of the test, just so you know I had to take those 1.5tb of reads to 2gb,
or else it would have taken ages to be done.

 

[Davvo]

Your average perfomance is just shy of 150Megabit/s , that's not a good result and there is an issue here.
Did you change only --io_size=1500g to --io_size=2g?
My bad for the long times, I forgot --runtime=120

Please run smartctl –a /dev/ada0 where “ada0” is the subject drive, do this for all your spinners and post the output into [CODE][/CODE]. I also suggest you to ditch the CLI and switch to an SSH client for mor ease of use.

Then, please go into reporting from the UI and look at the memory section, then at the ZFS section.

 

[cobrakiller58]

Bits? @Davvo I assume that is a typo?

Also is it relevant where you are in the file structure when running the Fio command?

 

[Ikon]

I have tried reinstalling truenas 2 times and it did not work, could it be on the windows side or is it some configuration I have to do?

 

[HoneyBadger]

Also is it relevant where you are in the file structure when running the Fio command?

It's very relevant if you don't want to be testing the boot media - change directories to your mounted pool/dataset - but it appears to be a 150MiB/s average based on the output.

 

[Ikon]

It's very relevant if you don't want to be testing the boot media - change directories to your mounted pool/dataset - but it appears to be a 150MiB/s average based on the output.

I know but I have gigabit ethernet here, so my question is how I can get higher transfer rate?

 

[HoneyBadger]

I know but I have gigabit ethernet here, so my question is how I can get higher transfer rate?

You don't, at least on gigabit. There are eight bits in a byte - so 150 megabytes per second is equivalent to 1200 megabits per second - or "over one gigabit" already. The bottleneck isn't on your network connection, or at least not to any significant degree as shown by your iperf results of ~891Mbps.

Your CrystalDiskMark results also show a drive size of 11264GB, which is 11TB - this would be the approximate result of using four 4TB disks in a RAIDZ1 arrangement. Please post the results of zpool status -v inside of CODE tags.

 

[Davvo]

Bits? @Davvo I assume that is a typo?

It appears I blundered badly. Sorry, it was pretty late in my timezone.

 

[Ikon]

Your CrystalDiskMark results also show a drive size of 11264GB, which is 11TB - this would be the approximate result of using four 4TB disks in a RAIDZ1 arrangement. Please post the results of zpool status -v inside of CODE tags.

It show 11tb because that is what I set it in the zvol, I can make it higher.

Here are the zpool stats

The Code thing didn't work on my screenshot

 

[souporman]

It show 11tb because that is what I set it in the zvol, I can make it higher.

Have you tried just transferring via an SMB share to see if the results are the same?

 

[Ikon]

Have you tried just transferring via an SMB share to see if the results are the same?

Exactly the same

 

[Ikon]

Here is a screeshot while i'm transfering something(this is the smb share)

Sorry for the language in the picture.

 

[HoneyBadger]

It show 11tb because that is what I set it in the zvol, I can make it higher.

Adding in the overhead of a zvol will likely negatively impact performance for you. What was the volblocksize set at for the zvol? (zfs get volblocksize poolname/zvol will show it)

The Code thing didn't work on my screenshot

You're still using the "Shell" option in the UI I assume - I suggest enabling the SSH service and connecting remotely via that method, as it makes copy/paste operations much easier for information gathering.

A simple SMB share with 2x5400rpm drives in a mirror gave me the following results:

 

[Ikon]

Adding in the overhead of a zvol will likely negatively impact performance for you. What was the volblocksize set at for the zvol? (zfs get volblocksize poolname/zvol will show it)

You're still using the "Shell" option in the UI I assume - I suggest enabling the SSH service and connecting remotely via that method, as it makes copy/paste operations much easier for information gathering.

I just use shift(ctrl) + Insert to copy paste into the shell.


Here is the crystal diskmark for the iscsi share:

Here is the crystal diskmark for the smb share:

Could it be my switch that can't handle it (I have a https://www.tp-link.com/no/business-networking/unmanaged-switch/tl-sg1016d/ )
Would it help if I install fiber between my pc and my server?

 

[ChrisRJ]

@Ikon , I really think there is a misunderstanding on your end about what speed is possible. To me those speeds are perfectly acceptable for your hardware.

Edit: What would be your expectation?

 

[Ikon]

What would be your expectation?

Since I have 1gig ethernet I would expect 1gig transfer speeds

But I have a back box sfp switch if that would boost the preformance?

 

[ChrisRJ]

Since I have 1gig ethernet I would expect 1gig transfer speeds

That is your misunderstanding . You do get 1 Gbps speed.

As @HoneyBadger mentioned, the 1 Gigabit per second of your network correspond to around 100 Megabyte per second in transfer speed.

 

[Ikon]

As @HoneyBadger mentioned, the 1 Gigabit per second of your network correspond to around 100 Megabyte per second in transfer speed.

So to get higher would fiber or a 4-port ethernet card work?

 

[ChrisRJ]

What speed do you need?

 

[cobrakiller58]

So to get higher would fiber or a 4-port ethernet card work?

Like I said earlier 10gig fibre or copper will be faster but your storage pool is too slow and you will still be disappointed.