<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 20/01/2012 07:03, Matt Emmott wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGHPk0afqP8hrf10jPckM3KmDLvsRW5ovfHW950TS6m8rizncw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Hey all,<br>
<br>
I recently completed a total overhaul of my home server
infrastructure. I found an insane deal on a Poweredge 2950 on eBay
- Dual 4-core Xeons, 8GB RAM, SAS RAID all for $300 - and set it
up as my new VMWare ESXi 5 server. It now holds all my VMs,
including my domain controller which serves DNS/DHCP/legacy WINS
etc, my PlayOn/Plex Media Server / Boxee Media Manager aggregator,
my Win2008 file server, and my newly-virtualized MythBuntu master
back end. Storage is an Apple Xserve RAID fiber array, with two
RAID-5 sets of 2.7TB and 4TB.<br>
<br>
I also have a slave back end, currently using local disk for its
recordings storage, and an HDHomeRun PRIME for its three tuners.
More on that later.<br>
<br>
I have a 2TB LUN dedicated to my Windows server which holds all my
DVD and Blu-Ray rips. I consistently get between 85 and 95
MB/second SMB transfer speeds between it and my windows machines
throughout the house over wired gigabit Ethernet. My original plan
was to set up an NFS mount on the Windows server and present at
least another 2TB LUN, dedicating that storage for MythTV
recordings. I would then point my MBE to that storage and move the
HDHomeRun PRIME to that MBE. The reasons for this are twofold:
First, many of the technologies I want to use including MythFuse,
MythBoxee and XBMC's Mythbox app don't support multiple master BEs
- They expect all recordings to be in the same place. Second, I
like having everything centralized, and front-ending it with a
Windows server means that I can grow the storage in the back end
and have it be mostly transparent to the clients. <br>
<br>
Now, I'm a Windows Systems Admin by trade. I suck at all things
Unix, plain and simple. When going through the NFS setup and
speaking with friends who are smarter than me, they all suggested
I just share everything over SMB. However, I did some testing last
night, and the fastest transfers I can get to/from my Windows
boxes and my two Myth BEs is 30MB/second. All testing was done
with a 14GB MKV. The Myth servers are running XFS, and the Windows
servers are NTFS with an 8192k allocation unit size. While this
may be adequate for my needs, I don't feel comfortable just
accepting that I'm going to lose 60% of my transfer speed
potential. As I mentioned, my MBE is a vm (Please don't hurt me),
but my SBE is physical and both are displaying about the same
transfer rate. Neither of them are running the latest version of
Ubuntu... I believe they are both on 10.10.<br>
<br>
So, after this wall of text, my questions are: Is this slowness
expected due to the Linux implementation of SMB? Or is there
something horribly wrong with my setup? Should I attempt NFS
again, or are there ways to tune SMB to make it faster? Do newer
versions of Ubuntu play more nicely with SMB? <br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mythtv-users@mythtv.org">mythtv-users@mythtv.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users">http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
Hi,<br>
<br>
I would at least try a newer version. Since you have that shiny box
there, firing up another VM won't be a problem. I am thinking 11.10,
basic server install, mount smb, try.<br>
<br>
Below is from a time long long ago and a land far far away...(more
for history than anything else)<br>
I do however recall a "bug" in Samba...I can't recall the exact
details and this will hurt any Windows Sys Admin (I myself have
ticked off over 10 years as one :) ) Samba is sending the replies
back to quickly...I can't remember the exact details of the packets
etc, but there was a config file option intro'ed to fix this. "2"
was our magic number.<br>
</><br>
<br>
While searching for the above.....I do seem to recall a lot of
people complaining about Samba, as a server, only serving up
30meg/sec, might be tied to the above... Can you clear up which is
the server you are copying the file from (Windows "with 2TB
lun"-> Linux local disk) ? <br>
<br>
The other "issue" might be local disks...I have noticed that my
local disk access has turned quite shocking...Adaptec SATA raid only
giving me 25-28 meg/sec....<br>
<br>
A way around the above is the following:<br>
<br>
d if=/mnt/smb/14gig.mkv of=/dev/null bs=4096<br>
<br>
Increase the bs to higher and higher and see what works. If you
would like to monitor the progress of the above command, run this<br>
<br>
dd if=/mnt/smb/14gig.mkv bs=4096 | pv | dd of=/dev/null bs=4096<br>
<br>
Replace /mnt/.... with the correct mount point.<br>
<br>
If the list prefers, we can take this off list as it doesn't really
cover myth, but rather Samba. Happy to post the outcome thou.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Pieter<br>
</body>
</html>