Am Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 09:12:37AM -0600 schrieb Dale: > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 4:42 PM Dale <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > <SNIP> > > > > > > My reasoning is simple, I'm already familiar with LVM and how to > > manage it. > > <SNIP> > > […] > > Wipe the machine. You'll be happier. > > > > Best wishes, > > Mark > > Well, I finally got it so I could do a backup. I didn't need a hammer > but the thought crossed my mind. lol Even tho I now have a 1GB network > card, it's still really slow. It shows up as a 1GB connection on both > my Gentoo machine and the NAS machine. This is a example of the speeds > I'm seeing. Just snippets. > > > 277,193,507 100% 16.18MB/s 0:00:16 > 519,216,571 100% 18.86MB/s 0:00:26 > 738,078,565 100% 23.54MB/s 0:00:29 > > > As you can see, the files sizes are large enough it should do better.
Gbit nets at around 116..117 MB/s. > When I use iftop, it shows it isn't doing anywhere near the speed it > should, maybe 1/4th or so. I'd expect at least double or triple that > speed. In all honesty, I'd think the hard drive would be the limiting > factor. Even on my Gentoo rig I only get about 50 to 60MBs/sec for > encrypted drives. I think the encryption slows that down. When copying > from a plain drive to a plain drive, I get 100MBs/sec or so. > > I can't figure out why it is so slow tho. The NAS rig is a 4 core CPU > and 8GBs of memory. OK, so you already noticed that encryption slows you down. This won’t happen with a CPU that has AES instructions (well, and if the encryption you chose actually uses AES, and not something else like Blowfish). So I guess your CPU is too old, given your earlier descriptions. When I built my NAS in November 2016, I installed a Celeron G1840 at first. A very affordable (33 €) and frugal CPU (2 cores, 53 W, which were never actually drawn). I knew it didn’t have AES back then (Intel removed that limit from Celerons in architectures after Haswell), but from experiments I knew it would achieve around 150..160 MB/s with LUKS, which was enough for Gbit ethernet. But not for scrubs, when all HDDs were worked in parallel. So after a year I did an upgrade after all and bought the smallest and cheapest CPU that had AES, an i3-41xx. > It should have enough horsepower under the hood. > Maybe it is something I'm not aware of. It is a older rig so maybe it > isn't SATA's fastest version, maybe even the original or something. I SATA 2 is 3 Gbit/s, so still not saturated by a single HDD. Network transfers are single-core work. If it is really such an old machine, I guess the CPU is the bottleneck again. Do you transfer via ssh? If so, use something else that doesn’t encrypt the transport stream. When I am bound by CPU in such cases (like with my ancient netbook with an Atom N450), and I don’t want to set up a file server (that is nowhere near as flexible as ssh anyways), I use netcat: On the receiving end, start a netcat listener and extract from it: nc -l -p $Portnumber | tar xf - The portnumber must be any number above 1024, if you’re not root. And on the sender, pack all your stuff into a tar (uncompressed!, since videos aren’t compressible further and it will bog down the CPU again) and pipe it to the receiver: tar cf - * | nc $Destination_IP $Portnumber Once the client is done, press Ctrl+C on the receiver. Or maybe use rsync with the rsync-protocol instead of ssh. That’ll be more flexible, because the tar-and-nc method doesn’t know about existing files on the receiving end. (But I’ve never tested that approach.) -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network. You sould borrow money only from pessimists, because they don’t expect it back.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
