Solved

SMB3.0 Copy from FreeBSD to Windows 2012 R2

Posted on 2015-01-05
8
355 Views
Last Modified: 2016-02-11
Hello.

I was hoping someone could help explain this for me.

I have a Windows 2012 Server, I have setup perfmon to record the Disk Read Bytes/Sec and Disk Write Bytes/sec of a local disk.  I have the lowest sample set to 1 second.

I am copying a file from the local disk to an Isilon Node (running free BSD) everything is perfect, numbers look good.

The problem is copying from Isilon to the local disk.  I see values that 'hiccup'.  Typically I get several hundred megabytes for a few seconds and then 0, then back high then zero again.  The high numbers are always at least one in a row up to 6 (so 1 second to 6 seconds) the drop is always 1 second....    

NOTE: I have verified that I am connected and transferring with SMB 3.0.

I am not seeing this with SMB 2.0 copies so I am thinking this is something to do with SMB 3.0??
0
Comment
Question by:adamc817
  • 5
  • 3
8 Comments
 
LVL 38

Expert Comment

by:Aaron Tomosky
Comment Utility
What is the network connection? Gigabit will only get you 100MBps.
Typically I get several hundred megabytes for a few seconds and then 0
0
 

Author Comment

by:adamc817
Comment Utility
Sorry, setup as 10gig SFP+
0
 
LVL 38

Expert Comment

by:Aaron Tomosky
Comment Utility
I'm not familiar with Isilon, but if you are using ZFS in freeBSD, it can have this behavior. If you have a zil/slog ssd setup as a write cache, you can stream write pretty fast as it flushes to disk every 5 seconds or so. However the reading from disk can be affected by a few things:
1. if some of the data is in the arc (ram cache)
2. if some of the data is in the l2arc (ssd cache)
3. if it's going to disk, and you are using the disk, the write cache flush can block reads for a moment.

Id suggest copying something into a ramdisk on the Isilon and using that as the source to test everything except the disk subsystem.
0
 

Author Comment

by:adamc817
Comment Utility
Hi Aaron,

No SSD's all platters....

wondering how I can write to the ram cache?  some zfs commands?  I will google later tonight but would love an example or place to look.  Thanks!
0
What Should I Do With This Threat Intelligence?

Are you wondering if you actually need threat intelligence? The answer is yes. We explain the basics for creating useful threat intelligence.

 
LVL 38

Accepted Solution

by:
Aaron Tomosky earned 500 total points
Comment Utility
From what I know of building my own FreeBSD and ZFS storage systems, this type of stutter on reads without an SSD is normal. To create a ramdisk for testing, reference this: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/disks-virtual.html

One of the benefits of having branded gear is you can call them. I'd suggest asking EMC if this is normal behavior

Edit: Are you running the current version of OneFS?
http://isiblog.emc.com/2014/07/emc-isilon-onefs-7-1-1-now-available/

Generally with performance testing new systems, it's best to isolate the disk from the network and cpu etc... With storage systems there are so many variables you can tweak and so many moving parts involved, isolating the subsystem part that is the bottleneck is paramount.
0
 
LVL 38

Expert Comment

by:Aaron Tomosky
Comment Utility
Thanks for the points, but I'd really like to know what the end result is when you hear back from emc.
0
 

Author Comment

by:adamc817
Comment Utility
OK, so you might not like the answer....

So previously I was copying from Isilon to HD on Windows 2012 R2.  I thought maybe the local disk array is causing the slow down?

So I made a RAMDisk on the Windows Machine, I did the copy and it was the same but was unable to get perfmon stats of a 'virtual' drive.

So I then tried to look at an SMB Counter on perfmon, no luck.  Finally tried the Network Adapter, here I saw steady 'bytes received/sec'.  So I thought I would try that again using the disk sub system, still steady bytes/received. (Always in the 400 MB/s, which was the average write MB/sec for the disk array).

So finally to sum it up I made a counter that recorded both the bytes written to disk and bytes received from the 10 gig adapter.  Turns out I still got drops in writes to the disk but maintained a steady reads on the adapter.  When I compared the bytes received vs bytes written to disk over a given period, they were off by about .1 bytes!

My conclusion is that there is a hold up either on the RAID card or WIndows 2012 that waits until there is enough data to write before writing it.  I was comparing this to a WIn 2008 R2 machine (SMB2) so I did the wrong initial test :(

I do appreciate your comments though, it will really help in the future.  I have to say the best help I have received here!
0
 
LVL 38

Expert Comment

by:Aaron Tomosky
Comment Utility
Glad you got it figured out! I had assumed you were doing SMB 2.0 on the same hardware so I didn't even consider ther receiving side hardware.
0

Featured Post

How to run any project with ease

Manage projects of all sizes how you want. Great for personal to-do lists, project milestones, team priorities and launch plans.
- Combine task lists, docs, spreadsheets, and chat in one
- View and edit from mobile/offline
- Cut down on emails

Join & Write a Comment

Suggested Solutions

Note: for this to work properly you need to use a Cross-Over network cable. 1. Connect both servers S1 and S2 on the second network slots respectively. Note that you can use the 1st slots but usually these would be occupied by the Service Provide…
Ever notice how you can't use a new drive in Windows without having Windows assigning a Disk Signature?  Ever have a signature collision problem (especially with Virtual Machines?)  This article is intended to help you understand what's going on and…
Windows 8 comes with a dramatically different user interface known as Metro. Notably missing from the new interface is a Start button and Start Menu. Many users do not like it, much preferring the interface of earlier versions — Windows 7, Windows X…
In this video, we discuss why the need for additional vertical screen space has become more important in recent years, namely, due to the transition in the marketplace of 4x3 computer screens to 16x9 and 16x10 screens (so-called widescreen format). …

772 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

14 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now