Hi, On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:50:00AM +0200, Andrea Lanza wrote:
> No, it is on a 1.8 TB stripe set Stripe ? It's RAID0 ? > > - and have you tried with the 'async' nfs option ? > no, I Don't; it is: > /storage *(rw,no_subtree_check,sync,no_root_squash) Could you please try at the occasion ? Just to see if it makes a difference... Normaly, async boost the nfs perfs ! I can be bad, I kown, but it's to compare apples with apples as the original software was also using it. > Internal cp command from one partition to the other doesn't pass 10 > MB/sec It's not very amazing, isn't it ? I can't understand what limits this box like this ? I found it rather well designed and sturdy, but why is it so poor in the performance area ? Isn't a 400 Mhz CPU plenty of power just to copy and move files on disks ? (I don't even speak of RAID5 parity calculations.) Or can't simply an ARM board be compared to an i386, and in this case, why ? Theses questions are perhaps candid, but I like to understand nevertheless. [hole cut in the casing] > > Was it easy ? Some advice to do so ? :-) > > > It wasn't so difficout; I have that hole in the top of the NAS, Of course ;) I have inspected just the back, but haven't found any suitable place... Thanks for your message, -- J.-F. STRAETEN --- Mutt 1.5.18 - Debian GNU/Linux -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
