190 replies to this topic

[+CPressland]

Hmm, changed the adapter from E1000 to VMXNET3 Same thing, 10MB/s maximum.

Oh wow! 13MB/s!

But on my Physical Machine (Mac Mini, I can pull 75MB/s easily)

[]SK[]

I get the same problem, to be honest I haven't looked into it yet, would be interested if you find a fix. it was doing it over iSCSI from a Windows 7 to FreeNAS VM for me.

[+BudMan]

Why do you have your mtu at 9000? Do you have jumbo frames setup on your nics? Does you physical switch support jumbo?

BTW - what is producing that stats page? Showing your disk io and network and memory?

Your graph is terrible why is it all over the place? See mine that is from the VM, and that copy dialog is from my workstation. Also notice my VM nic is showing connected at 10GB, not just 1 I never changed the mtu from default 1500 -- there is NO reason too. Does every device on your network have a 9000 mtu? If not your switch is doing a **** load of work.

[n_K]

From a VM transferring a file to the host ESXi server via SCP I get about 2MB/s... I'm not even kidding, it's abismal.
From one VM host to another on a private internal 'network' I get about 18MB/s.
That's on a dual quare core 8GB server with 2 VMs

[]SK[]

I know when I tried to set my box to 9000 it said the nic didnt support it.

[+CPressland]

]SK[, on 26 April 2012 - 11:00, said:

I get the same problem, to be honest I haven't looked into it yet, would be interested if you find a fix. it was doing it over iSCSI from a Windows 7 to FreeNAS VM for me.

Keep an eye on this thread then.

BudMan, on 26 April 2012 - 11:12, said:

Why do you have your mtu at 9000? Do you have jumbo frames setup on your nics? Does you physical switch support jumbo?

BTW - what is producing that stats page? Showing your disk io and network and memory?

Your graph is terrible why is it all over the place? See mine that is from the VM, and that copy dialog is from my workstation. Also notice my VM nic is showing connected at 10GB, not just 1 I never changed the mtu from default 1500 -- there is NO reason too. Does every device on your network have a 9000 mtu? If not your switch is doing a **** load of work.

I changed up my MTU to 9000 to see if that helped increase the speed, and it did, by 3MB/s. So I've lowered it back down.

How on earth did you get a 10Gbit to show up in ESXi?

Regarding the Graph. Thats VMWares Client for the iPad, the graphs were all over the place until I ripped out that dodgy hard drive, now they're holding stable with no issues.

[+CPressland]

n_K, on 26 April 2012 - 11:12, said:

From a VM transferring a file to the host ESXi server via SCP I get about 2MB/s... I'm not even kidding, it's abismal.

Yeah, transferring directly to ESXi gives me horrid performance too, took about 3 hours to transfer my Server 2008 r2 image over the Console, and about an hour and a half using SFTP.

]SK[, on 26 April 2012 - 11:13, said:

I know when I tried to set my box to 9000 it said the nic didnt support it.

My entire network supports 9000, I just don't use it normally, this was the one case where I did.

[+BudMan]

10GB is autoneg with driver for vmxnet3

here



yeah putting files on the datastore directly blows chunks.. I found a lot of threads about ftp server on the older 4.1 esxi that helped, but have not found good thread about putting ftp on esxi 5 yet.

But really only files you have to put there are iso for your installs and patches/upgrades to esxi -- so not too worried about slow speed uploading files to the datastore - not something have to do very often.

[]SK[]

VMware told me that you should always use the vmxnet3 card if you can as there are actually performance benefits. Typically only supported on the newer Windows systems though.

[+CPressland]

Oh Snap, mines 10Gbit now, must have happened when I shifted the driver to vmxnet3.

Anyway, that doesn't solve the issue. Any other ideas? Shall I post up some ESXi Networking Config?

[+BudMan]

It would be supported by anything that you can install the tools too - this has the drivers for it. I had them running on my pfsense box (freebsd 8.3) until I ran into a weird issue with connecting to ipsec/l2tp vpn from behind my router.

Freaking strangest thing -- I have to spend some time documenting it so can put in a bug report. But I could just not get a connection, it would just hang - I even turn on my oakley.log in windows to see the details of the ipsec connection, and nothing looked wrong - it just would hang. As soon as I put the nics back to e1000 on my pfsense vm - bam connected right into my work vpn from my phsycial laptop.

Let me grab a large file from vmfs, my transfers are all too and from RDM drives.. I assume yours are from a vmfs disk?

[+CPressland]

BudMan, on 26 April 2012 - 11:31, said:

Freaking strangest thing -- I have to spend some time documenting it so can put in a bug report. But I could just not get a connection, it would just hang - I even turn on my oakley.log in windows to see the details of the ipsec connection, and nothing looked wrong - it just would hang. As soon as I put the nics back to e1000 on my pfsense vm - bam connected right into my work vpn from my phsycial laptop.

Yeah I decided against using the vmxnet3 drivers on FreeBSD for the time being.

[+BudMan]

Ok that is pretty bad! This is writing to my vmfs © of my vm..



Now I run my system drives on my vms as thin provisioned.. So I am quite sure its having to expand out the file system as I copy that file. Let me do a copy back after it gets up there, and I can test read speed from it and then writing file when the file system has already been expanded out, etc.

Ok this copy file from vmfs -- not as good as the RDM drive, and it took a while to ramp up see the networking graph. But its workable I guess. But RDM drive is much better Maybe that is your issue. Give the vm raw access to the disk vs a vmfs.



Well thats not too shaby there.. I deleted that 3gb file I had copied up to the vmfs, so it would of expanded the drive. Then copied up a different iso (backtrack) and 70MBps -- can live with that for sure.

[+CPressland]

Well, thats pretty terrible, and the same kinda speeds I've been seeing.

The Server 2003 R2 box I've setup for sabnzbd was choking, but as the file system has been expanded it's got better.

The Problem comes in as

Incomplete Downloads go to a eager zeroed VMFS
Once downloaded they expand on this VMFS
then move to a Downloads_Complete folder located on a N36L with a dedicated Windows Server 2008 R2 OS
Finally, Sickbeard picks up the file and moves this to a Media Folder after doing some processing on the files.

Annoyingly, I can download a 300MB file faster than I can move it across my network in some instances.

[]SK[]

*Edit*

Ignore me. Think were better with thick discs then?