Promise SMARTSTOR NS4300N - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 683 Old 08-01-2008, 02:31 AM
Newbie
 
KA9Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PromiseNasDude View Post

Hi KA9Q, You are assuming a lot. Please slow down.. First, we do not use Linux RAID. We invented ATA in 97 (the whole reason RAID is now in Chipsets and everything else under the Sun

Okay, sorry, I'll type more slowly. :-)

I'm curious about something. The computing requirements for RAID-5 are quite modest; you just XOR all the blocks in a stripe and write that out as the stripe's parity block. Disk drives are so slow relative to even low end embedded CPUs that software RAID performs just fine.

So why do you need a special RAID controller chip inside the SMARTSTOR? I've used Linux software RAID for years and the CPU loading is way down in the noise. The CPU cost of doing the XOR is nil compared to the network stack, interrupt handlers, disk drivers, etc. So why not just do it all in software?

I may be out of date, but it's been my understanding that most "RAID controller" cards are what the Linux RAID developers call "fakeraid" -- ordinary non-RAID controllers with software RAID in the device driver or ROM BIOS. I presume that's not what you're using.

Since I knew your box ran Linux, I had really hoped that it used Linux software RAID and be accessible to standard Linux admin commands. I am concerned that if you are using a proprietary RAID format and my box should fail, I might not be able to read my drives on anything other than another SMARTSTOR. My data would be inaccessible until I get a new box -- IF a new box is still available. Is this true? The Linux software RAID format is very well documented so I know I will always be able to recover my data long after my vanilla SATA controllers have become completely obsolete.

I researched hardware vs software RAID before I built my existing Linux RAID server. I could see only one real advantage to hardware RAID for Linux -- battery backed RAM that could keep track of disk I/O in process when the power fails to ensure that the disk parity blocks are kept up to date when the system is rebooted. With software RAID you may have to run a utility to walk through the stripes and check or regenerate the parity blocks.

Because the SMARTSTOR and similar boxes are dedicated RAID servers and are small enough to be plugged into a UPS, theoretically it should provide very good data integrity even if the SMARTSTOR uses software RAID internally. In other words, I just don't see the point of doing hardware RAID inside the SMARTSTOR.

What I really want in any RAID server are "dumb" disk controllers fast enough to keep all the drives busy and to implement command queueing to let the drive firmware optimize the order in which it services I/O requests.

Otherwise I think there's far more performance to be gained with better algorithms, e.g., looking for opportunities to defer parity block generation so that fewer need be done, than by putting RAID into the hardware controller.

It certainly does seem that my best bet is to put my drives into a 4-drive bay on a small Linux system configured to do software RAID, and to sell the SMARTSTOR on eBay I am disappointed, though, because the SMARTSTOR's form factor is really quite nice.
KA9Q is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 683 Old 08-01-2008, 02:42 AM
Newbie
 
KA9Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagesbyanna View Post

The entire time I've had it (used both firmwares) I have not been able to achieve any read or write transfer rates above about 14MB/s.

14 MB/s is only a little over the speed of 100 Mb/s Ethernet. Are you absolutely sure that the path is entirely gigabit Ethernet?

I know 100 Mb/s is actually 12.5 MB/s, so if the 14 MB/s figure is real than this can't be it. But there's always the outside possibility of a measurement error somewhere causing the reported speed to be greater than it actually is. It's just too simple and easy not to check it.
KA9Q is offline  
post #93 of 683 Old 08-01-2008, 02:59 AM
Newbie
 
KA9Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyderx View Post

Remember this is in RAID 5. I am sure striping for standard drive speed would be faster. Raid 5 is always slower due to parity calculation.

This isn't really true. In principle there is no reason why RAID-5 cannot be almost as fast as RAID-0. Specifically for a 4-drive array, RAID-5 could be as fast as 3/4 of the speed of RAID-0 on both reading and writing *IF* you are doing large reads or writes.

The problem is NOT the parity calculation. That's an ultra-cheap CPU operation, just an XOR of a couple of buffers.

The problem is the extra disk I/O often involved. If you seek to a random place on the disk and write a block, the RAID subsystem has to do the following:

Read the original version of the block.
Read the parity block in the same stripe.
XOR the old data block with the new one you're writing.
Take the result of this XOR and XOR it with the old parity block.
Write the result into the parity block.
Write your new data into the data block.

That's two reads and two writes, just to write one block of data.

Another way to do it is to read all of the data blocks in the stripe other than the one you're updating. You also don't have to read the parity block. In a 4-drive RAID-5, that would be two block reads.

XOR those two blocks with your new data block to compute the new parity.
Write your new data and the new parity.

For a 4-drive RAID-5 that would also be two reads and two writes. Obviously on wider arrays this method becomes more expensive while the first stays the same. The advantage of the second method is that incorrect parity blocks are automatically fixed while the first one leaves it incorrect.

But when you're writing large files in large blocks, it needn't be nearly this bad. If the RAID subsystem can recognize that you're writing a lot of contiguous data, it can delay the generation of the new parity block until you've written all of the data blocks in the stripe. Then it computes the new parity block from RAM copies of the new data and queues that for write. Here you are not doing ANY reads from the array, and only one more write than the blocks you're already writing. That's how you get 3/4 of the write speed of a RAID-0 on a 4-drive RAID-5 array. It's just like RAID-0 except that every 4th block is skipped over (because it's used for parity).

Of course this only works if the file system allocates a contiguous stretch of disk blocks to your big file writes. Otherwise, if the file system fragments your new file, then the RAID subsystem will see a bunch of smaller writes in different places on the disk and it'll be unable to apply this optimization.

What I think we all really need is Sun's new ZFS. It eliminates the wall between RAID and the file system. The file system itself knows about physical drives and it manages the writing of extra copies of data blocks to different drives for redundancy. It's obvious that when the file system has all this information in one place it can do a much better job than a file system that doesn't know it's running on a virtual "perfect" disk.
KA9Q is offline  
post #94 of 683 Old 08-13-2008, 07:42 PM
Member
 
arkmann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Union City, GA, USA
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Anyone know why 2 weeks worth of posts of this thread has been deleted?
arkmann is offline  
post #95 of 683 Old 08-14-2008, 06:45 AM
Newbie
 
Joey1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
AVSForum's server crashed so they lost all the postings from the last 2 weeks.
Joey1234 is offline  
post #96 of 683 Old 08-14-2008, 08:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Al Sherwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Victoria, BC Canada
Posts: 3,231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Hey PromisNasDude... Do you have some insight for me on this?

I have 2 Lacie 500GB USB drives, I found out that had I read the manual I would have know that the USB drives need to be FAT32 formatted to be usuable (bummer!).

Now that I have a couple of FAT32 formatted USB drives, I still only see one at a time, add to this I sometimes have to reboot the system in order for it to discover the attached USB drive.

Al

Al
Al Sherwood is offline  
post #97 of 683 Old 08-14-2008, 12:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eq_shadimar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Plano, TX USA
Posts: 1,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Al -

PromiseNASDude had answered a question like this before the AVS server crash. The basic answer is that by design they only allow one USB drive to be attached at a time. I forget the reasoning behind it but there was some techincal reason. He had asked if that was a very important feature and stated he would inquire about the limitation.

He knows about the Server crash but Promise is running a focus group this week so I would not expect him to respond right away.

Laters,
Jeff

...wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world...
My HT Construction Thread - Updated Pictures 3/15/07
My 2.35:1 Discussion Thread - Updated Pictures 3/15/07
XBL = eqshadimar
eq_shadimar is offline  
post #98 of 683 Old 08-14-2008, 01:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Al Sherwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Victoria, BC Canada
Posts: 3,231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by eq_shadimar View Post

Al -

PromiseNASDude had answered a question like this before the AVS server crash. The basic answer is that by design they only allow one USB drive to be attached at a time. I forget the reasoning behind it but there was some techincal reason. He had asked if that was a very important feature and stated he would inquire about the limitation.

He knows about the Server crash but Promise is running a focus group this week so I would not expect him to respond right away.

Laters,
Jeff

Hi Jeff, thanks for the answer, it is interesting to note that the tech at Promise said it should support 2 drives attached.

I think that it is a limitation, unless you plan to use the 'second' USB for a printer or APC UPS it becomes useless.

I would like to hear the technical reasoning behind this, it would be interesting to know.

Al
Al Sherwood is offline  
post #99 of 683 Old 08-15-2008, 10:32 AM
Newbie
 
Joey1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Sherwood View Post

Hi Jeff, thanks for the answer, it is interesting to note that the tech at Promise said it should support 2 drives attached.

I think that it is a limitation, unless you plan to use the 'second' USB for a printer or APC UPS it becomes useless.

I would like to hear the technical reasoning behind this, it would be interesting to know.

I believe he said something to the effect that the NAS was limited to 1 usb drive due to worries about daisy chaining usb drives causing conflicts. For example, if you decided to connect a usb hub to the NAS and run several HD's from the hub etc.
Joey1234 is offline  
post #100 of 683 Old 08-16-2008, 04:49 PM
Newbie
 
pibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've got this unit and I'm only seeing 3 MB/sec reads. I figure this can't be right, I'm expecting at least 10x that number.

The Promise NAS NS4300N unit has 2x 750 gb 7200 rpm drives (samsung HD753LJ) in a RAID 0 striped configuration. My client is Windows Vista 64bit PC (Core 2 Duo, 4gb ram) copying to a local RAID 0 striped setup. I'm using SMB protocol to copy a large set of directories (30 gb test dir). There are two gigabit switches in between the NAS and the client PC over cat6 cables. Promise NAS NS4300N unit has the latest firmware. The NAS is connected to a gigabit switch upstairs, which has a 100' cat6 cable running to a gigabit switch/wireless-N router downstairs which is then connected to the Vista PC.

Any idea why my transfers would be so slow and what I can do about it?
pibble is offline  
post #101 of 683 Old 08-17-2008, 11:55 AM
mdv
AVS Special Member
 
mdv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 1,016
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This unit sucks. I can't stream OTA captured HD from it without glitches. That's only 28 Mbits/sec. The ReadyNAS I have on the same network is much faster and streams HD flawlessly.

Mark
mdv is offline  
post #102 of 683 Old 08-18-2008, 09:06 AM
Newbie
 
Joey1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Question: I currently have the NAS running in raid5 with 4x750gb drives. I'm curious how I can migrate to the 4x1tb drives?

I don't have a spare NAS to copy all the files over etc.

Thanks,
Joey1234 is offline  
post #103 of 683 Old 08-19-2008, 04:05 PM
KRB
Member
 
KRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
pibble & mdv: have you tried changing the network packet size (MTU) on the NAS? You might get faster transfers that way.
KRB is offline  
post #104 of 683 Old 08-21-2008, 12:38 PM
Newbie
 
lar1r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've been a Promise NAS owner for 8 months now and glad others are seeing similar concerns.

1) The fan noise is loud. I have to keep the NAS box in my basement so I don't have to hear it.

2) Transfers seem very slow (reads and writes). I am using a Gigabit connection (via router) and RAID 5 on 4 drives. I increased the MTU packet size which helped a little - but high bitrate video still stutters though. Increasing the packet size also makes audio files take longer to start up.

I also have a AMD machine with a SB700 in which I was trying RAID 5. I noticed that with 3 drives, the performance is much better than with 4 drives. Wondering if there is the same issue happening with the Promise NAS (Promise makes the Raid driver for AMD chipsets).


Thx

lar1r
lar1r is offline  
post #105 of 683 Old 08-22-2008, 09:55 AM
Newbie
 
mjkasper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hillsboro, OR, USA
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PromiseNasDude View Post

Ohh yes, their Expansion/Rebuild (my bad, you are correct, forgot about this feature - even though I have the ReadyNAS right here under my desk at home - I use for comparison and what not).. We have done this on several products for OEM's only. The process can be very dangerous as you are expanding a volume while rebuilding data (Back in 2003, I went thru this on many levels and it is great when it works). The real risk comes from possible "unhealthy" drives that can easily complicate the task. We are still considering to add this feature to the Next-Gen Product but have not made a solid decision. You really like this feature?

PromiseNasDude,
I also am interested in this feature. I've been looking at the Drobo solution and I like the simplicity and the ability to replace drives in a fully populated RAID with bigger drives. Concerning your comment on problems from unhealthy drives, if I were to replace a 500GB drive with a new 1TB drive and the 1TB turned out to be 'unhealthy' wouldn't the system just report a bad drive and ask for a replacement? If a second drive were to go down while I was upgrading a drive I understand that the entire RAID would be compromised.
The problem I see with the Drobo is the reliance on USB 2.0 when using the Droboshare to create a NAS. I'd like to see the Promise support upgrading drives in a fully populated RAID simply by removing an older smaller drive and replacing it with a larger drive.
You say Promise is considering a feature like this, when do you think you'll know your plans?
mjkasper is offline  
post #106 of 683 Old 08-24-2008, 09:35 PM
Newbie
 
garmust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I bought this product last week after doing some research with the help of this forum. I am pretty satisfied. Fan noise is annoying, but I have 2.8 TB of useable Raid-5 Storage (4 TB Raw) and it is working great for what I need it for, which is storing 18 years worth of family videos and pictures (~ 1.75 TB, that was previously on USB drives). Given the fan noise I will probably keep it powered down unless I need to use the data until the new quieter unit is available soon. Setting it up was simple.

All in all I spent $850 for the NAS (299 ar Frys) and 549 for the 4 WD 1 TB drives.

Sure, I could have spent a bunch more and got better performance from a ReadyNAS. A friend of mine at work bought one with 1 GB of memory (he had to add 512 MB) and is getting 40-50 MB/Sec read speed.

However, you can't beat the value of this unit if you want Raid-protected storage in a simple NAS device for home videos and other things that require a little extra protection.

I am getting ~9 MB/Sec for writes when I migrated my videos, but only about 15 MB/Sec read when I do large transfers. The performance is adequate for what I need right now, but I have seen that others have been able to get > 20 MB/Sec. Eventually I will probably want to use this for HD Video and other applications.

I have everything hard-wired on a gigabit network, but no jumbo frames (computer's NVidia GigE driver doesn't support it). Any suggestions on what might be hampering read speed? I even tried a different GigE router/switch that I had lying around and no differences. To measure the speed I just used an FTP transfer - maybe it issn't accurate?

Thanks!
garmust is offline  
post #107 of 683 Old 08-25-2008, 03:04 PM
Member
 
PromiseNasDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lar1r View Post

I've been a Promise NAS owner for 8 months now and glad others are seeing similar concerns.

1) The fan noise is loud. I have to keep the NAS box in my basement so I don't have to hear it.

2) Transfers seem very slow (reads and writes). I am using a Gigabit connection (via router) and RAID 5 on 4 drives. I increased the MTU packet size which helped a little - but high bitrate video still stutters though. Increasing the packet size also makes audio files take longer to start up.

I also have a AMD machine with a SB700 in which I was trying RAID 5. I noticed that with 3 drives, the performance is much better than with 4 drives. Wondering if there is the same issue happening with the Promise NAS (Promise makes the Raid driver for AMD chipsets).


Thx

lar1r

Hi lar1r, you should have no problem streaming High Bitrate content like m2ts files via UPNP/DLNA or SMB/NFS. What kind of performance numbers are you getting (simple test is to copy couple hundred megabyte file and time progress)? What is the client for streaming?


Please let me know.

Thanks.


Please let me know.
PromiseNasDude is offline  
post #108 of 683 Old 08-25-2008, 03:06 PM
Member
 
PromiseNasDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjkasper View Post

PromiseNasDude,
I also am interested in this feature. I've been looking at the Drobo solution and I like the simplicity and the ability to replace drives in a fully populated RAID with bigger drives. Concerning your comment on problems from unhealthy drives, if I were to replace a 500GB drive with a new 1TB drive and the 1TB turned out to be 'unhealthy' wouldn't the system just report a bad drive and ask for a replacement? If a second drive were to go down while I was upgrading a drive I understand that the entire RAID would be compromised.
The problem I see with the Drobo is the reliance on USB 2.0 when using the Droboshare to create a NAS. I'd like to see the Promise support upgrading drives in a fully populated RAID simply by removing an older smaller drive and replacing it with a larger drive.
You say Promise is considering a feature like this, when do you think you'll know your plans?

Hi Mjkasper, please give me a little time (week or so) to discuss with team and I will let you know. No solid decisions have been made yet.

Thanks.
PromiseNasDude is offline  
post #109 of 683 Old 08-25-2008, 03:14 PM
Member
 
PromiseNasDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by garmust View Post

I bought this product last week after doing some research with the help of this forum. I am pretty satisfied. Fan noise is annoying, but I have 2.8 TB of useable Raid-5 Storage (4 TB Raw) and it is working great for what I need it for, which is storing 18 years worth of family videos and pictures (~ 1.75 TB, that was previously on USB drives). Given the fan noise I will probably keep it powered down unless I need to use the data until the new quieter unit is available soon. Setting it up was simple.

All in all I spent $850 for the NAS (299 ar Frys) and 549 for the 4 WD 1 TB drives.

Sure, I could have spent a bunch more and got better performance from a ReadyNAS. A friend of mine at work bought one with 1 GB of memory (he had to add 512 MB) and is getting 40-50 MB/Sec read speed.

However, you can't beat the value of this unit if you want Raid-protected storage in a simple NAS device for home videos and other things that require a little extra protection.

I am getting ~9 MB/Sec for writes when I migrated my videos, but only about 15 MB/Sec read when I do large transfers. The performance is adequate for what I need right now, but I have seen that others have been able to get > 20 MB/Sec. Eventually I will probably want to use this for HD Video and other applications.

I have everything hard-wired on a gigabit network, but no jumbo frames (computer's NVidia GigE driver doesn't support it). Any suggestions on what might be hampering read speed? I even tried a different GigE router/switch that I had lying around and no differences. To measure the speed I just used an FTP transfer - maybe it issn't accurate?

Thanks!


Hi garmust, can you try a SMB file copy? Use File Explorer or IE. SmartNAVI provides easy access to Folder Shares on the NAS. Please let me know the performance number. Also, Nvidia Chipset? I know Nforce4 has issues I found during testing last year. It performance problem affect Promise, Netgear/Infrant and Buffalo.

Let me know.

Thanks.
PromiseNasDude is offline  
post #110 of 683 Old 08-26-2008, 10:54 PM
Newbie
 
garmust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PromiseNasDude View Post

Hi garmust, can you try a SMB file copy? Use File Explorer or IE. SmartNAVI provides easy access to Folder Shares on the NAS. Please let me know the performance number. Also, Nvidia Chipset? I know Nforce4 has issues I found during testing last year. It performance problem affect Promise, Netgear/Infrant and Buffalo.

Let me know.

Thanks.

I did an SMB copy and got ~18 MB/Sec. Thanks for the tip about NVidia - I have the 430b chipset so next I am going to install a new GigE card to see if that makes a difference.
garmust is offline  
post #111 of 683 Old 08-27-2008, 07:03 AM
Newbie
 
lar1r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi lar1r, you should have no problem streaming High Bitrate content like m2ts files via UPNP/DLNA or SMB/NFS. What kind of performance numbers are you getting (simple test is to copy couple hundred megabyte file and time progress)? What is the client for streaming?

I mounted the NAS as a drive to my XP system (y:\\), and copied over a large file to my desktop. I got 4615KB per second transfer.

I've also done more testing on an AMD system with 4 Seagate 7200.10 drives in RAID and am also seeing poor performance. Switching to any other brands do not show this performance anomoly. Could the same problem be occuring with the Promise NAS (since they both use Promise RAID drivers)?

Thx

Lar1r
lar1r is offline  
post #112 of 683 Old 09-04-2008, 11:36 PM
Member
 
PromiseNasDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lar1r View Post

Hi lar1r, you should have no problem streaming High Bitrate content like m2ts files via UPNP/DLNA or SMB/NFS. What kind of performance numbers are you getting (simple test is to copy couple hundred megabyte file and time progress)? What is the client for streaming?

I mounted the NAS as a drive to my XP system (y:\\), and copied over a large file to my desktop. I got 4615KB per second transfer.

I've also done more testing on an AMD system with 4 Seagate 7200.10 drives in RAID and am also seeing poor performance. Switching to any other brands do not show this performance anomoly. Could the same problem be occuring with the Promise NAS (since they both use Promise RAID drivers)?

Thx

Lar1r

Sorry for delay as I received no email notification of your post.

NAS Problem first.. Can you check Network settings in PASM (Web Interface) and let me know if you are synced at 100Mbps or 1000Mbps? Look under the Jumbo Frame setting under Network. Next, please check the Event Log under Management in PASM. Any BSL, Timeout or Task errors? One bad (funky) disk can reduce the overall performance of the array quite a bit. How about the write speed? What is the performance if you copy the same file back to the NAS from the PC?

Your Promise RAID in your PC is onboard? You are using AMD 7xx chipset? If so, performance should be very high unless again, a disk is limiting performance. You are using RAID 5? What are you using for benchmark under Windows?

BTW: What MB?

Please me know.

Thanks.
PromiseNasDude is offline  
post #113 of 683 Old 09-05-2008, 08:44 AM
Newbie
 
mjkasper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hillsboro, OR, USA
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PromiseNasDude View Post

Hi Mjkasper, please give me a little time (week or so) to discuss with team and I will let you know. No solid decisions have been made yet.

Thanks.


PromiseNasDude,

Any update on adding the ability to replace smaller drives with larger drives in a fully populated NS4300N like can be done with a Drobo or ReadyNAS NV+ ?

Mike
mjkasper is offline  
post #114 of 683 Old 09-05-2008, 12:34 PM
Newbie
 
lar1r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PromiseNasDude View Post


NAS Problem first.. Can you check Network settings in PASM (Web Interface) and let me know if you are synced at 100Mbps or 1000Mbps?

Next, please check the Event Log under Management in PASM. Any BSL, Timeout or Task errors? One bad (funky) disk can reduce the overall performance of the array quite a bit. How about the write speed?

Full Duplex, 1000Mbps, MTU set to default now
No errors under the Event Log

Quote:
Originally Posted by PromiseNasDude View Post


What is the performance if you copy the same file back to the NAS from the PC?

I will try this again later. Right now I am transfering my data to new 1TB drives on the PC to swap out my old RAID array. 46hrs and counting....

Quote:
Originally Posted by PromiseNasDude View Post

Your Promise RAID in your PC is onboard? You are using AMD 7xx chipset? If so, performance should be very high unless again, a disk is limiting performance. You are using RAID 5? What are you using for benchmark under Windows?

BTW: What MB?


PC RAID testing done with ASUS M3A78-T (790GX) using onboard RAID with HDTach and HDTune - both will show probs with writes. Have tried multiple other SB700 boards as well from other vendors.

Promise driver 3.1.1540.77. Seagates are 7200.10.

Seagate - 1 drive RAID 0 = 5 MB/s Average Write in HDTach
Seagate - 2 drive RAID 0 = 8 MB/s Average Write in HDTach (two western digital drives score 121 MB/s)

Reads actually look ok on this platform - close to 200MB/s in RAID 0


Anways dont worry about PC prob, I am working with Promise on that. Wondering if it gave any insight to what I am seeing on the Promise NAS. Quick question. Is there more overhead going from a 3 RAID5 drive array or to 4 RAID 5 drives? can I go back to a 3 drive array (if I take out a drive it thinks one shut down)

Thanks!
lar1r is offline  
post #115 of 683 Old 09-08-2008, 07:05 AM
Member
 
mwaarna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Miami FL
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
PromiseDude,

Any ETA on the new noiseless units?

Thanks

-Matti
mwaarna is offline  
post #116 of 683 Old 09-08-2008, 08:33 PM
Newbie
 
randynas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am looking into these units as a central storage/file sever device. The one iterm that is important to me that I can not find the answer is this:

If i set up a Raid 5 with (4) 1TB disks and some time in the future the NAS hardware fails, will I be able to read my data off the disks from some other available box in the future?

This seem to be a missing link if you plan to use these for many years as I am sure in 3-4 years this hardware will be long obsolete and not practically replaceable. If I can at least connect the bare drive to a USB interface and plug it into a Linux or windows I can get my data moved to somthing else.


So can somone tell me if these drives will be able to be read by some standard method that wont require propritary hardware that may or may not exist in 3-5 years.

Thank you...
randynas is offline  
post #117 of 683 Old 09-08-2008, 09:16 PM
Member
 
PromiseNasDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by randynas View Post

I am looking into these units as a central storage/file sever device. The one iterm that is important to me that I can not find the answer is this:

If i set up a Raid 5 with (4) 1TB disks and some time in the future the NAS hardware fails, will I be able to read my data off the disks from some other available box in the future?

This seem to be a missing link if you plan to use these for many years as I am sure in 3-4 years this hardware will be long obsolete and not practically replaceable. If I can at least connect the bare drive to a USB interface and plug it into a Linux or windows I can get my data moved to somthing else.


So can somone tell me if these drives will be able to be read by some standard method that wont require propritary hardware that may or may not exist in 3-5 years.

Thank you...

Unfortunately the answer to your question is NO. If the NAS fails you can only "recover" the array/volume using another NS4300N (using our recover feature). Our NAS (and most others) most write a file system to the Physical Array as the NAS maintains security and access to Windows, Mac, Linux/Unix. The latter is achieved by using various services such as Samba, NFS, CIFS, AFP and others. Not to mention if you simply remove the drives and place into any General Purpose Machine for access to data, this would defeat the whole purpose of having security.



A friendly word of advise: Always have a backup of all data. I have been seeing a disturbing pattern of users using NAS (not just ours) as central storage with NO other copies of their data anywhere. Not a good idea. Like your PC and other devices, you can suffer massive failures for reasons beyond your control such as Brown-out, Flooding, Lightning Strikes and more. For instance, I had a Power Failure (and a Brown-out that followed) take out a UPS in my house a month ago (one of six I have). In this case, the UPS protected 2 NS4300N and 1 NS2300N.

Need anything else, please let me know.

Thanks.
PromiseNasDude is offline  
post #118 of 683 Old 09-09-2008, 10:26 AM
Newbie
 
randynas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thank you for the answer, many have said they thought this would be the case but you are confirming it.

This brings me to a much more fundamental question:

Why would I want to have a NAS like this since enevtually all the data will be lost?

BTW I am not flaming you or Promise, it just seems that this one Feature or Flaw (depending on your perspctive) reduces the value of these boxes significantly.

Lets face it we all know that this (and every other NAS unit) will be manufactured for some limited length of time 1 year? maybe 3 years max, at which time the data on it will be at high risk. It seamed to me that the entire idea of running RAID, remembering the R is for Redundant, is that I would have a solutuon of resonable high data integrety, once I introduce propriatary hardware that doens't have forward compatability, I have lost all comfort in my data being safe.

If I can't use Raid as backed up data I see less value in it.


My next question is is there a stand alone solution that will provide data redundancy simular to raid 5, but allow the drives to be accessed with evergreen hardware like USB or SATA?
randynas is offline  
post #119 of 683 Old 09-09-2008, 12:31 PM
Newbie
 
TJ304's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
PromiseNasDude, what is the timeframe on the new NAS units? I'm currently in the market for a NAS and this looks like a great option. But I don't want to purchase one now only to have to send it back in to be exchanged very soon.

Are the new ones already in stores? Or should I still wait?
TJ304 is offline  
post #120 of 683 Old 09-10-2008, 01:14 PM
Newbie
 
Joey1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hello,

I've been keeping up with your postings on MPC Club and it looks like the problems that we've previously discussed involves DLNA functions for large libraries. I'm curious what the status of your work on it and if I could have access to the beta.

Thanks,

Joey
Joey1234 is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off