ESXi - N40L - Slow Network Speeds


Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

I am running 2 VMS, WHS2011 and WinXP, both have vmxnet3 drivers installed. The XP network says its running at 1.4GB/s and the WHS network is running at 10GB/s.

When I transfer files from one VM to the other i am getting speeds of 2MB/s. Why is this so slow??

I have run iperf and get speeds of 102 Mbits/sec

whilst the file transfer is in progress CPU usage is around 10% on both VM machines, but when I run iperf, CPU usage maxs out at 100% on the XP VM and about 55-65% on the WHS2011 VM.

Is the CPU being at 100% throttling the network?

I am running one physical network card,

Can anyone shed some light on this? I am a newbie to VMs but not to computers :)

thanks!

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1128838-esxi-n40l-slow-network-speeds/
Share on other sites

Those speeds (That are reported in Windows) are for the Virtual Adapters. Although its true that transferring speeds between VM's on the same does write directly between Memory and not hit the wire so to speak. The speed will only be 1Gbps on the Physical Adapter by the way. Have you applied all the latest patches to ESXi, I would highly recommend it. My CPU usage is always really low, Infact I am surprised at how efficient it is. I just need some more memory in my baby!

http://www.vmware.com/patchmgr/findPatch.portal

SK[' timestamp=1357165637' post='595429082]

If your using the vmxnet3 driver shouldn't it be showing 10GB?

*Edit*

Just checked my XP VM out and indeed it shows 1.4GB. Never noticed that before.

102Mbit is about right for a 1GB NIC no?

It might be for XP that it shows 1.4Gbps, Don't have one to test it. I have only seen it at 10GBps. Budman could chime in though and tell us if this is the case.

Yes your right just over 100MB for 1Gbps.

So I don't have an XP vm currently - but I could fire one up for sure.

But between my nas vm and win7 vm I show this, btw 102mbps is SLOW if you showing connected at gig speeds.

C:\Windows\System32>iperf -c storage -w 256k
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to storage, TCP port 5001
TCP window size:  256 KByte
------------------------------------------------------------
[276] local 192.168.1.210 port 49233 connected with 192.168.1.8 port 5001
[ ID] Interval	   Transfer	 Bandwidth
[276]  0.0-10.0 sec   599 MBytes   502 Mbits/sec

I should see if I can get that up a bit - my physical machines see much higher. 800Mbps should be seen on a gig network fairly easy.

So file copy from my nas vm to my win7 vm

post-14624-0-27431800-1357221554.png

So I am seeing 50MBytes per second in this test.

But curious to what disks your writing/reading from - are you just trying to copy a file from datastore drive of vm to another datastore drive on the other vm. My nas has raw access to the 3 drives it uses for storage. So the above tests were from one of those disks to the datastore drive of the win7 vm

Also curious --- you gave 4GB to each of your VMs, do you have more than 8 in your N40L?

So I did a test that I think more reflects what your doing more likely. And that is from datastore drive to datastore drive of each VM. And in that test I got only 23MBps

post-14624-0-56310600-1357222192.png

What else is your datastore disk doing at the time?? That performance is not going to be the best, your 2 different VMs are accessing the same physical disk. So yeah there is going to be some contention for time.

thanks, i have 10GB of memory in my N40L, an 8Gb and a 2Gb stick.

I have a drivepool in WHS, consisting of 2TB and 1.5TB WD Green drives

I am transferring files from the pool to the XP machine which has a second 2TB drive attached.

The VMs themselves were stored on the 250Gb drive, but I have moved them to another 2TB drive for now.

The ESXi is installed on a 8GB USB pen drive.

Thanks

a bit of progress maybe?

under the WHS2011 VM

If i "pull" a file from the xp machine to the WHS drivepool i get speeds of 13.5MB/s

if i "push" a file from the WHS drivepool to the xp machine i get speeds of 2MB/s

could that be a write issue with the XP HDD ? (E: 2TB)

thats still pretty crappy for a gig network. If I do a iperf or file copy to a physical machine from the vm I get this

C:\test>robocopy \\storage\media\cleanup c:\test test.mp4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ROBOCOPY	 ::	 Robust File Copy for Windows
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Started : Thu Jan 03 10:31:22 2013

   Source = \\storage\media\cleanup\
	 Dest : c:\test\

	Files : test.mp4

  Options : /COPY:DAT /R:1000000 /W:30

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

						   1	\\storage\media\cleanup\
100%		New File			 650.8 m		test.mp4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

			   Total	Copied   Skipped  Mismatch	FAILED	Extras
	Dirs :		 1		 0		 1		 0		 0		 0
   Files :		 1		 1		 0		 0		 0		 0
   Bytes :  650.86 m  650.86 m		 0		 0		 0		 0
   Times :   0:00:09   0:00:09					   0:00:00   0:00:00


   Speed :			74150984 Bytes/sec.
   Speed :			4242.953 MegaBytes/min.

   Ended : Thu Jan 03 10:31:31 2013

C:\test>iperf -c storage -w 256k
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to storage, TCP port 5001
TCP window size:  256 KByte
------------------------------------------------------------
[336] local 192.168.1.100 port 16077 connected with 192.168.1.8 port 5001
[ ID] Interval	   Transfer	 Bandwidth
[336]  0.0-10.0 sec  1012 MBytes   849 Mbits/sec

Notice the 800+ Mbits per second over gig.. And in the 70MBps for file pull from my VM.

Do an iperf test from your physical to your VM, using a higher window size, say -w 256k You can see example of this test in my above output. On the server set it up with iperf -s -w 256k

Do you have 2 physical boxes we can play with - 295Mbps is that your iperf test.. That is pretty crappy for a gig network. Did you use the larger window size for your test?

at 8.59 mbps -- is that over wireless or something? Are you reading writing from a USB disk or something.. That is just horrific performance.

Damn you beat me too it! I was going to say that. How are they formatted?

I added the drives under the vclient and formatted them via windows - is that right? am a novice with ESXi

Do you have 2 physical boxes we can play with - 295Mbps is that your iperf test.. That is pretty crappy for a gig network. Did you use the larger window size for your test?

at 8.59 mbps -- is that over wireless or something? Are you reading writing from a USB disk or something.. That is just horrific performance.

yes, those figures are are with iperf on a wired Gb network

I've just performed another iperf test

physcial XP machine set as server (1Gb network) - wired

physical win7 laptop set as client (100Mb network) - wired

and i get 87Mbits/sec

the laptop has only got a 100Mb network card, so thats the max on this network - this is for this test only.

Well 87mbps on 100mbit connection is about right.. Best you could see on 100mbit is around mid 90's -- think best I have ever seen is 97 something. Never ever going to see actual speed of the connection.

But on gig you should be seeing closer to 800s vs your under 300 number.

So question for you on your VM whs - did you give whs raw access to the disks, or did you create vmfs on the disks that the OS has access to.

So for example on my storage box

post-14624-0-36278900-1357239638.jpg

Notice that the 3 disks I have given it to use in a drive pool the disks are raw mapped, and then above that you see the virtual disk (on the datastore drive) that is the vmfs for the OS installed too.

Here is a guide on how to do that

http://vm-help.com/esx40i/SATA_RDMs.php

So for example here is my maps

/vmfs/volumes/4f677e4a-81443006-5233-2c768aadf656/RDMs # ls -la

drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1120 Dec 26 13:12 .

drwxr-xr-t 1 root root 5180 Dec 29 14:59 ..

-rw------- 1 root root 2000398934016 Apr 7 2012 rdm1-rdmp.vmdk

-rw------- 1 root root 521 Dec 26 13:12 rdm1.vmdk

-rw------- 1 root root 750156374016 Apr 16 2012 rdm2-rdmp.vmdk

-rw------- 1 root root 520 Dec 26 13:12 rdm2.vmdk

-rw------- 1 root root 750156374016 Apr 14 2012 rdm3-rdmp.vmdk

-rw------- 1 root root 520 Dec 26 13:12 rdm3.vmdk

/vmfs/volumes/4f677e4a-81443006-5233-2c768aadf656/RDMs #

So couple of things to deal with on your slow performance - why your iperf between vms is so slow. And then make sure that your drive access is as fast as it can be. How are attaching the disks to your VMs could be a limiting factor - and have to look into the speed between vms from a network as well. I do recall seeing above 1Gbps before on iperf between machines

yeah just looked up a old thread about N40L performance - and in a test there I was seeing 1.5Gbps between vms - have to take a look why only seeing 500mbps now

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1071115-esxi-hp-microserver-n40l-performance/page__view__findpost__p__594826393

post-14624-0-44916300-1335455395.jpg

So I got something not quite right as well - wonder what would of changed?? I know the client is different in this test. Have to look to getting my between vms speeds back to that over 1Gbps ;)

This is a copy from A Win7 VM to my physical Desktop over a 1GB switch. The discs are thin provisioned.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBOCOPY :: Robust File Copy for Windows
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Started : 04 January 2013 09:16:13
Source : VM7COMPUTER
Dest : C:\Users\Andrew\Desktop\
Files : SOME.FILE
Options : /DCOPY:DA /COPY:DAT /R:1000000 /W:30
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 VM7COMPUTER

100% New File 701.8 m SOME.FILE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Copied Skipped Mismatch FAILED Extras
Dirs : 1 0 0 0 0 0
Files : 1 1 0 0 0 0
Bytes : 701.88 m 701.88 m 0 0 0 0
Times : 0:00:06 0:00:06 0:00:00 0:00:00

Speed : 108010209 Bytes/sec.
Speed : 6180.393 MegaBytes/min.
Ended : 04 January 2013 09:16:20
[/CODE]

This is copying from a Win XP machine to my physical desktop over the same switch with the VM in the same datastore. Basically, there is nothing different from the above other than its a VM with XP rather than 7.

[CODE]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBOCOPY :: Robust File Copy for Windows
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Started : 04 January 2013 10:10:43
Source : VMXPCOMPUTER
Dest : C:\Users\Andrew\Desktop\
Files : SOME.FILE
Options : /DCOPY:DA /COPY:DAT /R:1000000 /W:30
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 VMXPCOMPUTER
100% New File 851.2 m SOME.FILE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Copied Skipped Mismatch FAILED Extras
Dirs : 1 0 0 0 0 0
Files : 1 1 0 0 0 0
Bytes : 851.20 m 851.20 m 0 0 0 0
Times : 0:00:13 0:00:13 0:00:00 0:00:00

Speed : 65230532 Bytes/sec.
Speed : 3732.521 MegaBytes/min.
Ended : 04 January 2013 10:10:57
[/CODE]

XP seems to be much slower than its predecessor. I know they are slightly different file sizes but the speed speaks for itself.

TBH as I run with such a small amount of resources I would sooner use XP over 7 yet XP feels much slower than 7 does as a VM on my MicroServer. Windows 2008 R2 feels much snappier than XP does. I need to ditch my XP machine really as these tests above prove 7 is not performing how it should.

The host is a HP MicroServer (N36L so the mk1 version).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!