Issues arise when using Truenas Core, leading to slower operation.

A

Alon_Block
Member

79

01-29-2016, 07:36 PM

#1

Hey everyone! I'm having some performance issue with my new NAS. Fairly new to this stuff so I'm asking around a few places to try and cast a wide net. I recently built a Truenas core system out of my old editing machine. I have 8x8TB Seagate drives (4 are new Ironwolf disks, 4 are an older model, ST8000VN0002 disks which I previously used). They're in a RaidZ2 configuration. Specs: CPU: i7-4930k, RAM: 32GB of Ripjaw DDR3 RAM. Mobo: Asrock x79 extreme6 NIC: 2x Intel x540 T1 NICs (on both the server and my desktop) Switch: Switch is the Netgear XS708E Cables: Cat6 cables connecting everything, one 6 foot from server to switch, one 25 foot from the desktop. I'm getting about 180MB/s max write speed from my SMB shares to Windows, which seems normal. However my read speeds don't seem to be going above 220MB/s. I feel that the read speed should be much higher for a RAIDZ2 on a 10g network. I've checked all the switch settings, tried different cables, and I ran an iperf3 test and got 9.5Gb both ways, so it's definitely not a network issue. I've also tried enabling jumbo packets in Windows. I'm currently waiting on some more RAM to see if it's a cache issue. Can anyone help solve this mystery? Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Z

zedbroom
Junior Member

9

01-31-2016, 01:32 AM

#2

You seem to have limited memory, roughly matching the guideline of 1G per TB. What kinds of files are you transferring? Do you have a temporary storage area? Check your system by running these commands: netsh int tcp set global dca=enabled ... and registry adjustments. It might be wise to wait for someone more experienced to assist.

C

CMJ29
Junior Member

9

02-01-2016, 05:38 AM

#3

It seems unusual for an 8TB Ironwolf to reach those speeds. Have you looked at the CPU utilization to check if it’s getting limited?

1

10WATSOC
Member

63

02-01-2016, 07:34 AM

#4

SMB operates without multithreading, which means single-thread performance might actually be a problem. Personally, I haven’t encountered CPU bottlenecks at higher speeds beyond gigabit networks, especially since my experience is limited to basic networking tasks. This advice seems more suited for enterprise environments with heavy database operations, where ARC plays a key role. For home setups, it’s probably less of an issue overall, though workloads can still matter.

C

CiaoCow
Member

129

02-02-2016, 10:19 AM

#5

I’m sure I’ll notice spikes during data transfers, while it quickly stores them in the cache. Large files have moved across the network in seconds, especially on a 32GB RAM Linux NAS, but performance drops when writing to the hard drive.

K

kevvouna
Member

54

02-02-2016, 11:03 AM

#6

It really makes a difference how big your ARC is. But 32GB should be fine, that's all I'm suggesting...

I

iShake74
Junior Member

17

02-08-2016, 10:08 PM

#7

We've placed an additional 32GB order to check for ARC problems, though based on all the information I've seen I'm still doubtful it's the cause.

K

KiiritoBR
Member

59

02-10-2016, 01:58 AM

#8

I also have the ability to transfer around 16GB from an NVMe drive to my NAS before the cache gets full. It's not a dedicated NAS—it handles other tasks as well, and since it's JBOD it doesn't use RAID.

C

CH_SwissPower
Junior Member

41

02-10-2016, 06:06 PM

#9

ZFS doesn’t rely on RAM for writing caches, which isn’t a big issue. ARC serves as a read cache and performs adequately, though 32GB should suffice for most home users unless there’s a particular need for extra space.

S

SLOgamingLP
Member

220

02-11-2016, 12:06 PM

#10

This might depend on how the filesystem manages caching. Ext4 likely uses its own cache, while ZFS tends to run synchronously by design. RAIDZ2 should generally outperform a single drive, especially with proper RAID configuration.