testing request

[scottbakertemp]

Any way you guys could do some tests comparing file copying speeds of WHS2003 VS WHS2011 with 5400 and 7200 hard drives?

[Guest no-control]

Need more info like why? what is the proposed question we can test against? Technically it would be the same as it's pretty much 95%? hardware dependent. If all variables are kept the same there should be only a minor difference.

 

For hardware:

across a single drive? across a RAID? what size caches?

 

For software from WHS to what? a client machine? across a network (jumbo frames)? within the same WHS (disk to disk)? Large file transfers? small file transfers?

 

We would really need to set some more specific parameters to do this.

[scottbakertemp]

I was under the impression that server 2008 was much faster when copying files to the server from a client and client to server as opposed to server 2003. Maybe I misunderstood. Is that completely false?

[pcdoc]

I have tested most of what you are asking for so here is a summary. Remember that there are a bunch of variables such as drive type (ie, WD Caviar), size (larger drives tend to be faster) and interface. In summary, given a 1T drive 5400 green vs 7200 Caviar, you can expect the the benchmarking to go from about 70-75 mmbs to roughly 90 mbs form either 2003 or 2011 as internal drive performance is about the same between comparable machines. Network performance is a bit faster with 2011 as there is no overhead form DE so you can expect about 10-15% difference between the two. Again many things can affect network performance. As an example, using WHS V1, I average 70mbs on the network but it can dip as low as 40 and peak at 80 depneding on what DE is doing at the time. Becasuse I am running raid on my 2011, I never see it below 105 mbs. I have not tested a single drive on 2011 yet so I will post when I get results.

 

Hope this helps.

[scottbakertemp]

thanks for the reply. Looks like it's not the amazing difference I thought it was.

[pcdoc]

thanks for the reply. Looks like it's not the amazing difference I thought it was.

 

Depending on hardware it could be but for the most part no. The most performance I got was going from V1 to 2011 using RAID. That is noticiable.

[kermi]

Depending on hardware it could be but for the most part no. The most performance I got was going from V1 to 2011 using RAID. That is noticiable.

 

Actually that's not entirely true.

 

There is signigicant improvements in SMB performance between 2003 and 2008.

[usacomp2k3]

There is signigicant improvements in SMB performance between 2003 and 2008.

That's what I was going to say. I think the BYOB guys mentioned something about that. SMB2 was released with Vista and Server 2008 and SMB2.1 for Win7 & Server 2008 R2.

content...

Might want to specify between MB/sec and mb/sec. Significant difference between the 2.

[pcdoc]

Actually that's not entirely true.

 

There is signigicant improvements in SMB performance between 2003 and 2008.

 

True but it it does not seem to manifest in eveyday file transfers. I realize that 2008 is technically superior but when I use standard windows file copy to perform my testing and that is the result I got. I still saw a 20+% gain from one to the other but I believe most was attributed to DE and there is an overhead penalty. If you have a more accurate way to measure the difference, let me know and I can reproduce it.