Is ~55MB/s "reasonable" over AC?

[sfx2000]

To be sure I follow, you're saying you get about 350Mbit over AC? So that seems roughly in line with 416Mbit (read) and 248Mbit (write) -- that is, if I am indeed understanding you correctly there.

It is possible to put a rough Mbit on your "large folder of small files" performance over AC? I'm particularly curious if you see something other than roughly 56Mbit (read) and 9Mbit (write)...

I did a copy of the linux kernel source to check... if that's not a bunch of files/directories, I don't know what is...

And that was over AFP...

 

[turnstyle]

I did a copy of the linux kernel source to check... if that's not a bunch of files/directories, I don't know what is...

And that was over AFP...

Did you post the Mbit for the "bunch of small files"? Or are you saying you get roughly 350Mbit for that?

 

[sfx2000]

My numbers aren't that huge...

Mac Mini GigE to Airport Extreme and then to Linksys SE2008 Gigabit dumb/green switch to the TS-453Pro - and the sink is Debian 8 (Jessie) running as 2 core/2GB RAM as a VM on the QNAP - QTS 4.1.4 (current)...

Going to QNAP native is a bit faster on it's filesystem..

 

[turnstyle]

I'm gathering your "big file" over AC to QNAP is roughly 350Mbit -- if you can share a rough Mbit for "a bunch of small files" that would be super helpful -- ideally one for read, one for write.

Regardless, thank you for trading note with me. -Scott

 

[sfx2000]

Did you post the Mbit for the "bunch of small files"? Or are you saying you get roughly 350Mbit for that?

Do a git pull against the current Linux source repo - it's thousands of itty-bitty little files...

Big files like a DVD/BR rip aren't that much faster on a NAS box - not because of the file size, NAS boxen are optimized for small files as anyone can be fast on a CP of big files...

 

[sfx2000]

I'm gathering your "big file" over AC to QNAP is roughly 350Mbit -- if you can share a rough Mbit for "a bunch of small files" that would be super helpful -- ideally one for read, one for write.

Regardless, thank you for trading note with me. -Scott

small files - not big ones...

 

[turnstyle]

Sorry, I'm not quite getting you -- I believe you said you get about 350Mbit for a big file Mac/QNAP over AC transfer -- but I'm not clear what you get for a bunch of small files -- can you put a rough number on that? (Ideally, one number for reading a bunch of small files, and another for writing a bunch of small files.)

I hope I didn't somehow miss that you already posted that number?

 

[sfx2000]

small files - your performance issue is there...

 

[turnstyle]

small files - your performance issue is there...

Yes, why I'm asking -- do you get performance much different from this with your Mac-to-QNAP setup?

* Reading a bunch of small files from the QNAP to the Mac -- 7MB/s
* Writing a bunch of small files from the Mac to the QNAP -- 1.1MB/s

 

[sfx2000]

Yes, why I'm asking -- do you get performance much different from this with your Mac-to-QNAP setup?

* Reading a bunch of small files from the QNAP to the Mac -- 7MB/s
* Writing a bunch of small files from the Mac to the QNAP -- 1.1MB/s

Not sure where you're getting those numbers from - I didn't quote them..

 

[sfx2000]

And for what is is worth - NAS boxes moving from ARMv7 to x86 (AMD_64) is basically a 10LogN increase in performance overall...

Not just for the kernel, but for all the subsystems - the x86 community is much larger, and they deal with bigger problems..

 

[turnstyle]

Not sure where you're getting those numbers from - I didn't quote them..

They're what I get with my Mac over AC to the internal SSD on a PC wired to my router.

I'm curious how these "bunch of small files" numbers compare to a dedicated NAS like your QNAP.

I also get:
* Reading a big fie -- 52MB/s
* Writing a big file -- 31MB/s

Which I gather is roughly in line with your QNAP -- I think you said roughly 350Mbit -- so now I'm hoping to compare my small file result to that of a QNAP (or a Synology)...

THX

 

[sfx2000]

Which I gather is roughly in line with your QNAP -- I think you said roughly 350Mbit -- so now I'm hoping to compare my small file result to that of a QNAP (or a Synology)...

The QNAP x86/AMD64 box, the Samba server really doesn't care...

If you're considering a NAS box - the QNAP TS-251 is a good starter, or similar with Synology/Asustor... decent performance..

MacMine 2010 or later with OS-Server, similar, but depends on device media - Internal is fastest, thunderbolt is very fast, and USB3 is pretty decent. Mini 2012 also includes FW800, which for some apps, is very useful...

 

[turnstyle]

I'm sorry if I have somehow been unclear, I'm getting roughly this:

* Reading a big fie -- 52MB/s
* Writing a big file -- 31MB/s
* Reading a bunch of small files -- 7MB/s
* Writing a bunch of small files -- 1.1MB/s

And I'm considering getting a NAS -- but I'd like to compare what I get to what I might expect with a NAS.

I gather you see roughly similar with your Mac over AC to your QNAP for big files -- I think you said 350Mbit.

But what I'm asking is what performance you get for reading/writing a bunch of small files -- Mac/AC/QNAP -- and whether you get something substantially different from the numbers above.

Thanks & Peace...

 

[sfx2000]

I gather you see roughly similar with your Mac over AC to your QNAP for big files -- I think you said 350Mbit.

But what I'm asking is what performance you get for reading/writing a bunch of small files -- Mac/AC/QNAP -- and whether you get something substantially different from the numbers above.

Asked and answered - see above

 

[turnstyle]

No, you didn't quote those numbers nor did you answer the question that the OP has kindly asked a few times.

I'm sorry if I haven't been clear, or if I somehow offended -- I know I'm not a regular here!

I'd still love for sfx2000 -- or anybody else -- to share their "real world" numbers, ideally of a Mac talking to a NAS (Synology or QNAP) over AC wifi.

I had been thinking I would replace my PC file server (running external USB2 drives) with a NAS -- partly because I thought I'd get 3x (or more) performance boost.

But now my understanding is I'll get more like 60% boost when transferring large files, and 100% boost when transferring small files. (Again, with the client over AC, not wired.)

And, sure, 100% is better -- but it's not that 3x blowout I had thought it would be -- and so I'm just hoping to confirm to help make a purchase decision.

Basically the question boils down to -- for anybody using a Mac to communicate with a NAS over AC wifi, are you getting results substantially different from this?

* Reading a big fie -- 52MB/s
* Writing a big file -- 31MB/s
* Reading a bunch of small files -- 7MB/s
* Writing a bunch of small files -- 1.1MB/s

Or should I start a new thread with this question?

Thanks for hearing me out! -Scott

 

[sfx2000]

Remember - comparing apples to oranges - My NAS is a SATA 3 running 4 disks in a RAID10 config - the RAID is directly attached to the PCIe bus of the J1900 (there's a PCIe switch in the middle, but no protocol conversions need to take place on the storage side...

I'm copying over the Linux kernel source tree - my wireless numbers are about 1/2 of what I'm seeing on the wire, mainly because WiFi is half-duplex, whereas ethernet is full duplex.

The challenge you're finding with your Win7 Laptop with a shared USB drive is that each file need to be created on the target drive, and it's this overhead across the PCI/PCIe bus to the USB controller, across the cable, to a USB to ATA adapter - so on a big file, that's one thing, but when doing hundreds/thousands of small files, it is killing your write performance.

 

[turnstyle]

The numbers above are for the internal SSD of the PC wired to the router -- I set up a new share so I could eliminate the USB2 bottleneck -- so there is no USB involved there.

So now I'm curious how those numbers would compare to, say, a Synology DS115 or QNAP TS-131.

As it stands, my instinct is to expect that "Ethernet to a PC with internal drive" is going to be comparable to "Ethernet to NAS with internal drive" -- but I welcome the opportunity to learn.

Thanks for continuing the conversation. -Scott

 

[sfx2000]

The one thing I caution here - are you testing filesystem performance or network through put?

Tools like iPerf/JPerf or NetStress will tell you much more about your network situation - that way your applications/filesystems are not skewing the results.

The main site has a great article on using JPerf - check it out here

 

[sfx2000]

sfx2000, you provide great information. But I don't understand why you cannot answer the simple question being asked repeatedly with a simple answer? Is it that you can't? Or won't?

Yes - 55MBps is reasonable - OP's question is now answered ok?

To the OP - you keep moving your questions around - I'm not a paid tech support guy, and I'm running out of patience - seriously, consider that you are taking up my time to answer your stuff.. and then you question my answers.

Best of luck - if you're using WiFi for a production solution, well, reconsider that - buy a CAT5 cable and solve that problem...

I'm done with this thread...