RS1619xs+ SYNOLOGY Cluster to slow?

Currently reading
RS1619xs+ SYNOLOGY Cluster to slow?

2
0
NAS
RS1619sx+, RS820
Last edited:
THE QUESTION
Did we expected to much? While we are testing our all new and shiny RS1619xs+ SYNOLOGY Cluster - the systems performance is disappointing …more or less.
I will explain details further on, but to boil it down here are some tests so far.
Files (20GB up to 70GB) that where created from VEEAM Backup Server to the new system can only be moved (read) somewhere pretty slow. We tested as followed:
  1. On the System itself (copying those files to another Directory) or to SMB shares over 10Gb (VMs on ESXi Hosts with 15k SAS RAID5 also 10GB LAN) results in 40-60 MB/s.
  2. Copy these files back (write) from ESXi Host results in round about 250 MB/s
  3. Copying from a Synology RS820 with 10GB NIC and RAID5 with 4x10TB via SMB to cluster speeds up to 500 MB/s.
  4. Copying to the Synology RS820 with 10GB NIC via SMB from cluster and we’re back on 40-60 MB/s.
Has anyone a system that somehow is compareable?
How fast is yours? Maybe someone with SSDs for cacheing?
Or all SSD? Or maybe someone with more SATA drives in RAID5 on BTRFS?
THE SETUP
We’re running two RS1619sx+ with 8GB SYNOLOGY RAM, SYNOLOGY 10Gb Dual Port and 4 x 12 TB HDDs ( Seagate EXOS X14 ST12000NM0008) RAID5 with both machines in Cluster-Mode.
Filesystem is BTRFS. Network connection is a dedicated storage LAN via optic fibre and Extreme X460 G2 Switching Infrastructure.
PURPOSE
The configuration should serve as a VEEAM Backup Repository and occasionally provide VM-Storage for vSphere 6.7.
We’re thinking about using VMWare benchmark software to have more realistic values to compare, but wanted to hear from you before.
Thank you,
Sebastian
 

jeyare

Subscriber
1,741
575
Short evaluation:
- write operation to your RS1619xs cluster is in “expected” level
- read operation is in low cost USB2.0 disk drive level

Try to avoid SMB and use NFS instead and check results.
 
2
0
NAS
RS1619sx+, RS820
Hi jeyare.
Thank you for your reply. We are about to break up the cluster to check performance individually. To check NFS before could be intresting too. I'll be checking in to report later.

by
 

jeyare

Subscriber
1,741
575
I have NFS everywhere when it's possible:
- it's faster than SMB
- is better for remote backup targets than SMB from basic point of view = Network File System
Also better for virtual platforms, when you don't need just standard file share services.

Then you can check your setup of MTU in the NAS and in entire path between NAS and hosts. There is not a general rules - you need try to tune these setup based on your architecture and common transfer scenarios.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Welcome to SynoForum.com!

SynoForum.com is an unofficial Synology forum for NAS owners and enthusiasts.

Registration is free, easy and fast!

Similar threads

Similar threads

Trending threads

Top