What I found kind of interesting was that if you access via SFTP its super fast. ![]() Im hoping someone will reply with 'damn pops you are just dumb, you click these 5 buttons and magically the performance you expect is granted' but im not seeing it.Īre you also noticing similar things to me? is everybody experiencing this? how the hell are you all happy with this? o_O Its so bad that it even 'infects' the fast disk1 view, and once the shares SMB version are stopped it instantly jumps to being performant and in line with every other major implementation used by other providers. We can watch it in real time, the 100 - 1000x slower performance of unraid (left) vs windows server (right)Īnd then we can see this issue not exist in disk shares, unless of course you dare use the unraid user shares at the same time Like im of the mind that i MUST be doing something wrong because of how poor the performance is like im assuming a lot of people here use SMB right? it isn't some unknown, niche and new technology so how has throughout the entirety of unraids existence, no developer or limetech in general cared to fix this? ![]() Im noticing the same problems you are, but i don't really get it. Hi i am in the process of migrating to (or maybe away from xD) unraid because of this The more files and folders in a directory, the longer the delay.) (When I go exploring inside of, say, the backup folders, there are occasional substantial delays while disks spin up and the file/directory information is transferred. This means I only have about 3000 items in the cache. As an example, on my Media server, I only cache the Media folders. Thus, it likely to reallocated when any other process makes a memory call. The RAM allocated for the plugin script- I understand that this plugin is a shell script- has a very low priority level. (and I do use it.) My experience is that you only want to cache a minimum number of files and folders. As I understand it, it is a mixed bag of worms. I assume that you are talking about Dynamix Cache Directories plugin. Morra-diagnostics-20220807-1625.zip Edited Augby Kyle Boddy ![]() I applied these fixes without much change:Īny suggestions? Screenshots of my Folder Caching uploaded along with Diagnostics.Īnd heck, while you're here, if you can look into why I can't bind my Mellanox 10G-SFP card to eth0, feel free to have a look at this thread that has been dying a slow death: I have batch scripts that require listing the files from the directory nightly, and the slowdown is somewhere between 200-1000x slower despite the Folding Caching plugin, a 10G-SFP connection, local access, and RSS support enabled (along with a client reboot and server samba restart command issued).Ĭhecking the Folder Caching logs doesn't seem like it's doing much, just repeating an "Executed find" log message every ten seconds or so despite a client machine requesting a directory listing and hanging for several minutes:Ģ022.08.07 16:21:56 Executed find in (0s) 00.18s, wavg=00.18s Idle_ depth 9999 slept 10s Disks idle before/after scan 9998s/9998s Scan completed/timedOut counter cnt=14694/14695/0 mode=4 scan_tmo=30s maxCur=9999 maxWeek=9999 isMaxDepthComputed=1 CPU= 5%, filecount=202851Ģ022.08.07 16:22:07 Executed find in (0s) 00.17s, wavg=00.18s Idle_ depth 9999 slept 10s Disks idle before/after scan 9998s/9998s Scan completed/timedOut counter cnt=14695/14696/0 mode=4 scan_tmo=30s maxCur=9999 maxWeek=9999 isMaxDepthComputed=1 CPU= 5%, filecount=202851Ģ022.08.07 16:22:17 Executed find in (0s) 00.18s, wavg=00.18s Idle_ depth 9999 slept 10s Disks idle before/after scan 9998s/9998s Scan completed/timedOut counter cnt=14696/14697/0 mode=4 scan_tmo=30s maxCur=9999 maxWeek=9999 isMaxDepthComputed=1 CPU= 4%, filecount=202851Ģ022.08.07 16:22:27 Executed find in (0s) 00.18s, wavg=00.18s Idle_ depth 9999 slept 10s Disks idle before/after scan 9998s/9998s Scan completed/timedOut counter cnt=14697/14698/0 mode=4 scan_tmo=30s maxCur=9999 maxWeek=9999 isMaxDepthComputed=1 CPU= 4%, filecount=202851 From the command line after a single file listing (to presumably cache the file structure), access was nearly instant. Formerly these shares were on a Windows Server box, and SMB browsing of the directories was a bit slow in Windows Explorer, but after indexing, was fine. I have a few directories/shares that have thousands of files in the top level. I am running the latest unRAID 6.10.3 with Folder Caching implemented and activated, with cache_pressure of 1 set.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |