Prebuilt NAS slow write speeds

[jagdtigger]

Okay so lets open this can of worms. The NAS is a Zyxel NAS540 with four 4TB disks in raid5, dual 1 gig ethernet aggregated. I know it wont be the fastest thing in the world but 16 MB/s for SMB/NFS/RSYNC is pathetic. Plain unencrypted FTP is 40 MB/s which is slightly better but considering the amount of data i have to move (~7 TB) its still pretty slow. According to official specs it has a FreeScale Dual Core Cortex-A9 1.2 GHz CPU.

 

Any ideas where is the bottleneck?

[Bombastinator]

21 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Okay so lets open this can of worms. The NAS is a Zyxel NAS540 with four 4TB disks in raid5, dual 1 gig ethernet aggregated. I know it wont be the fastest thing in the world but 16 MB/s for SMB/NFS/RSYNC is pathetic. Plain unencrypted FTP is 40 MB/s which is slightly better but considering the amount of data i have to move (~7 TB) its still pretty slow. According to official specs it has a FreeScale Dual Core Cortex-A9 1.2 GHz CPU.

 

Any ideas where is the bottleneck?

Could be a lot of places.  Internal to the nas is most likely.  There should be full measurements available from the company, not just processor specs.  Computers are long chains of systems and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.  It might not even be slow compared to other identical products.

[Sauron]

27 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Dual Core Cortex-A9 1.2 GHz CPU

Found the problem

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Found the problem

Thats what i thought too until i took a look at a review:

 

Raid5 file copy to NAS 85 MB/s, with 1TB drives.

 

12 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

 There should be full measurements available from the company,

Well they claim:

Quote

Equipped with RAID-5 configuration NAS540 can deliver up to 133 MB/sec of reading and 79 MB/sec writing speeds.

Which got confirmed by the above review.

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Raid5 file copy to NAS 85 MB/s, with 1TB drives.

Using what protocol? NASPT is a synthetic benchmark. The drives they use might also be faster than yours.

 

"Network backup" isn't much faster than you reported...

[jagdtigger]

With FTP, highly doubt their backup SW used that, plus the cpu has always ~20% idle. The interesting part is that pure-ftpd uses about 40%, while SW  raid takes 20%. Interesting split there.