Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About asheenlevrai

  • Title


  • CPU
  • Motherboard
    Asus z390-a
  • RAM
  • GPU
    rx 590
  • Case
    cooltek x5
  • Storage
    500GB Samsung 970 Evo
  • PSU
    cannot remember
  • Display(s)
    Philips BDM4350
  • Cooling
  • Keyboard
  • Mouse
  • Sound
    embeded (monitor speakers)
  • Operating System

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. But is it 300MBps for each client or 300MBps shared among all the concurrent clients? Parallel vs sequential handling of the requests. In the case it is shared among clients, would it be different if using SSDs? Can SSDs handle multiple concurrent requests in parallel better than HDDs or they are just faster at sequentially handling requests?
  2. Thanks Now back to my original question, If we ignore the network limitation, would the 4 clients accessing the array simultaneously need to share the max throughput of the disk array? Or can the disk provide the same transfer speed to all clients in parallel. In the OP I mentioned : "Now let's imagine 4 clients connect simultaneously to the NAS and start a large transfer of data (they read data from the NAS). If the answer to 1-A above is 300MBps [limit of the disk array], could all 4 clients actually get 125MBps [limit of the network connection]? Or do these 300MBps need t
  3. Mostly Synologys. Most of them do not support AIC. Network is not compatible with 10GbE AFAIK and I cannot modify it. Thanks
  4. You are right. This was a mistake of mine to include a 10GbE switch in that example. Let's say none of the network is compatible with 10GbE. I'll change that in the OP.
  5. Seems like part of your reply was cropped I need to look into smbv3 then. I never heard about it and didn't know such a thing was possible (I was always told link aggregation couldn't break the limit of a single connection). I also need to check if my NAS is compatible with smbv3. Thanks a lot
  6. indeed! I'll fix that in the OP. Thanks
  7. Hi I have a question about how data transfer works... Let's imagine a home NAS with 2 HDDs in RAID1 and a GbE connection. A) Each HDD is capable of ~150MBps (read/write) 1) -> Does RAID1 mean the theoretical max for reads is going to be around 300MBps (both drives can be accessed simultaneously) 2) -> Does RAID1 mean the theoretical max for writes is going to be below 150MBps (around 75MBps?) since both drives need to be written to simultaneously? Or will it stay around 150MBps? B) 1GbE = 125MBps so this will not be a bottleneck, right
  8. Too high for the standing position. Laying on its side, the bottom with all the IO and cables would be apparent.
  9. Well the LianLi Tu150 is too high (312mm) and would look terrible laying on its side...
  10. Hi I'm looking for a relatively good/neutral looking case that should fit in the following space: - width: max 80cm - height: max 28cm - depth: max 40cm A tower case positioned on the side shouldn't show inelegant parts that would otherwise be hidden, like feet etc... I would like the following features: - support for a 240mm AIO - support for a modern GPU (dual slot at least I guess) - at least one USB3.0 port on the front (type-c would be welcome but it seems like this is pretty exceptional) - no visible cutting
  11. 12TB Ironwolf drives : 210MBps throughput. 8 drives -> 1680MBps -> 13440Mbps Link aggregation (4x GbE) : 4000Mbps. Since 13440>4000, does it mean I would benefit from increasing the amount of RAM on the NAS? Now: 12TB Ironwolf drives : ~120MBps SMB sequential read/write performance. -> 960MBps -> 7680Mbps Still above 4000Mbps
  12. Hi everyone I am currently using a Synology DS1819+ as a file server and to host a wiki (~20 users). The device comes equipped with 4GB of DDR4 and so far RAM usage has remained below 20% (usually around 15%). I guess this means that 1GB of RAM would be enough for what my DS does, right? I now have the opportunity to replace those 1x4GB by 2x8GB. Or I could use these 2x8GB elsewhere... It doesn't seem to make any sense to add more RAM into my DS1819+ but I was told that DSM (Synology's OS) would actually use free RAM as cache to improve performance. This could be
  13. I solved the issue by doing the following: - boot the old system (from the 256GB SSD) - attach the 2TB SSD via USB - use Macrium Reflect to clone the 266GB SSD onto the 2TB SSD - use mbr2gpt (don't forget to specify disk:X in the args!!! In my case X=1) to convert the 2TB disk from MRB to GPT - place the 2TB disk into the new system - boot -> Win10 boots (happy smile on my face) - use Minitool Partition Wizard to resize the system partition on the 2TB SSD That was... Well, it's done now... Thanks -a-