Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)
Sign in to follow this  
NL40_User

Slow file transfers from Windows Server to HP N40L Backup device

Recommended Posts

NL40_User

This will be a bit long and rambling, so please bear with me.

 

I have a Dell Poweredge T320 in my network, which I run as a 2012R2 DC/File/Print/Media box (with a P4 Desktop running 2008r2 as a second DC/ "BDC"). The Dell houses an 8-bay drive array, running 8 x 4Tb HGST "Enterprise Grade" 7200rpm SATA drives in a RAID6 array (hanging of an H710P RAID controller). I have two 500Gb SATA drives for the OS, configured in a mirror, and controlled by a separate controller (an H310). The Server has two 1Gb NICs onboard (Broadcomm Netxtremes), and I've added a 2-port Gigabit generic NIC, and have combined those two ports into a bond (Team1). Other specs are: Xeon CPU E5 2407 v2 (2.4GHz quad-core), 48Gb RAM.

 

I also have an N40L, which runs the modified BIOS, with all SATA ports setup for 3Gb/sec transfer (SATAII) speeds. In it, I have 5 6Tb WD Red 5900Rpm drives, with the 4 in the hot-swap bays configured as Synology SHR (RAID5 with data protection), and the 5th drive configured as a hot spare (connected to the esata port via esata to sata cable run through the back of the box).

 

OS is Synology's 5.2-5592 Update 1, as "modified" for use on generic hardware via the Xpenoboot people. It runs the standard O/B NIC, plus another of the two-port generic 1Gb NICS. I've created a 3-port "Bond" for those NICs, which show as a 3Gb bond in DSM's control panel. It's otherwise basic standard spec (1.5GHz Turion dual-core, but does have 8Gb RAM).

 

The HP is used as a backup target for the Dell Server. Currently, the backup is around 6.5Tb in size (Acronis backup is the software of choice), and is configured to run weekly, with an initial "full" backup, and differentials thereafter. The backups are taking ~ a day to complete at present.

 

My network is gigabit throughout (save some edge cases which use an 802.11ac wireless access point, but the servers are not on that network).

 

I have a 24-port L2 managed switch (a Netgear GSM7224r), which has 2 LAG groups configured: a 2-port group for the dual-port NIC/Team1 in the Dell, and a 3-port group for the bond in the HP box. both groups shown as "link up" on the switch.

 

In testing this morning, I copied a 3.8Gb .iso file from the Server to the Synology box. The best throughput rates I could get were around 112-114Mb per sec. but these are not sustained (it varies between 50+-100+Mb/Sec. The Server (via taskmgr/performance) shows the NIC outputting at very close the 1Gb mark (suggesting that the NIC Team isn't handling the traffic, but the traffic is instead going our through a single 1Gb NIC), but at the HP box, the actual rates being reported are ~100Mb/sec or less. Perhaps I'm being wildly optimistic, but I was hoping that I could get higher sustained throughput than that...I tried to force traffic from the Windows Server to the backup target to go via the Team1 bond, but am unsure of whether that is actually working (suspect not), and whether even if I do get it working, whether I'm being unrealistic to expect better sustained throughput, given the hardware I'm using.

 

Apologies for the long-winded post. Just wanted to give as clear a picture as possible of my network config. so people can gain a clear idea of where I might have gone wrong (if indeed I have).

 

Is ~100Mb/sec transfer rates reasonable for this kind of a setup, or can I expect more with the right "tweaking"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NL40_User

Should be 100MB/sec. OK for a single Gb link, but it seems I'll need to work on the LAG (at both ends, and at the switch), to get better than that. The NICs are configured for aggregation/load balancing, rather than as failover links...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oj88

If you only have a pair of computers talking to each other (one server and one client), whether they're connected back-to-back or through a switch, you will only be able to saturate one ethernet link at most, regardless if you have two or eight physical ethernet connections between them. In other words, a packet session or stream (for lack of a better term) will not be broken down across the different physical links.

 

Having multiple links is only advantageous for two things:

1. Redundancy

2. Load-balancing when there are two or more clients accessing the same server. Each client has the potential to 'hit' the server at a max each ethernet media can provide (1gbps in this case). If you have more than one client however, each additional packet session or stream will occupy the next available physical link in the aggregation. In other words, you will only see both aggregated links become saturated (2gbps) if you have at least two or more clients accessing the server at the same time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NL40_User

If you only have a pair of computers talking to each other (one server and one client), whether they're connected back-to-back or through a switch, you will only be able to saturate one ethernet link at most, regardless if you have two or eight physical ethernet connections between them. In other words, a packet session or stream (for lack of a better term) will not be broken down across the different physical links.

 

Having multiple links is only advantageous for two things:

1. Redundancy

2. Load-balancing when there are two or more clients accessing the same server. Each client has the potential to 'hit' the server at a max each ethernet media can provide (1gbps in this case). If you have more than one client however, each additional packet session or stream will occupy the next available physical link in the aggregation. In other words, you will only see both aggregated links become saturated (2gbps) if you have at least two or more clients accessing the server at the same time.

 

OK, that makes sense. I'm seeing sustained 110+MB/sec transfer rates between the two (on basic file copy ops), so that would seem to be as good as it will get. Thanks for the response/s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...