How many Hdd's do i need to saturate 10gbit?

Lunar_Fox said:
NAS won't be as quick as NVMe which runs at 7GB per second, your 10Gb Ethernet is under 1GB per second once you take Ethernet overhead into consideration.

Anyway, its should be quick enough for your needs.

Other thing to remember is not just transfer rate but iOPS and latency would.be significantly quicker with SSD or NVMe.

Our designers at work cache their working copy on local disk and then replicate to NAS overnight, they work fine with data that is 100's GB in size.
Click to expand...
Sorry you mean gbit or gb?

im talking 10gbit here and a nvme would definetly saturate a 10gbit connection as nvme pci 4 can go up to 70gbit approximently.

in terms of iOPS and latency, how can that be improved via softeare or hardware?

i am running linux ubuntu server and my pc client is a desktop windows 11 pc with a 10gbit nic card and i also have a macbook pro which i will use a 10gbit to thunderbolt NIC adapter
 
jonneymendoza said:
Sorry you mean gbit or gb?

im talking 10gbit here and a nvme would definetly saturate a 10gbit connection as nvme pci 4 can go up to 70gbit approximently.

in terms of iOPS and latency, how can that be improved via softeare or hardware?

i am running linux ubuntu server and my pc client is a desktop windows 11 pc with a 10gbit nic card and i also have a macbook pro which i will use a 10gbit to thunderbolt NIC adapter
Click to expand...

In real world terms there is little to gain because as you say, the network will be by far biggest the bottleneck here. Offloading work to the server maybe?but that’s assuming the desktop and Mac can’t pan the server into next week, which unless very old, they almost certainly would.

You could potentially use WiFi 7 to thunderbolt or some kind of PCIe tunneling, but you’d be colouring outside of the lines to some extent.
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
Sorry you mean gbit or gb?

im talking 10gbit here and a nvme would definetly saturate a 10gbit connection as nvme pci 4 can go up to 70gbit approximently.
Click to expand...
Think you're both talking about the same thing but in different locations.

What you and @Lunar_Fox meant is correct, in that the NVMe on a NAS will be hurtling away at 7GB(ytes) per second on the device it's attached to. But Lunar_Fox was saying that whilst it sits in the NAS, the best case scenario would be a 1GB(ytes) per second access speed to it via a 10Gb(it) connection from any other machine on a 10Gb(it) connection, as 1GB(yte) per second is roughly 10Gb(it) per second. So you'll be missing out on near 6GB(ytes) per second speed. But as they also said, the 1GB(yte) per second speed is likely enough for most people anyway.
 
Lunar_Fox said:
NAS won't be as quick as NVMe which runs at 7GB per second, your 10Gb Ethernet is under 1GB per second once you take Ethernet overhead into consideration.
Click to expand...

There is also IO in general not just the sustained transfer rates - things like generating thumbnails for a large number of media files, etc. is massively faster with an NVME in the NAS vs HDD.
 
Rroff said:
There is also IO in general not just the sustained transfer rates - things like generating thumbnails for a large number of media files, etc. is massively faster with an NVME in the NAS vs HDD.
Click to expand...
Two lines further down,

Other thing to remember is not just transfer rate but iOPS and latency would be significantly quicker with SSD or NVMe.

It really does depend on the use cases. Somebody transferring large media files won't see a big change switching to SSD. Lots of little files, you can see a difference like generating thumbnails. To some extent you can improve iOPS with writeback caching or using a SSD caching drive. Again it depends on your use cases, you might save a few seconds, you might save minutes. Thing being if you are doing big transfers, unless you are using your PC to make money like content creation then most people wout disappear and make a cup of tea or they go and browser YouTube for a bit or come on this site, lol.
 
Lunar_Fox said:
Two lines further down,

Other thing to remember is not just transfer rate but iOPS and latency would be significantly quicker with SSD or NVMe.

It really does depend on the use cases. Somebody transferring large media files won't see a big change switching to SSD. Lots of little files, you can see a difference like generating thumbnails. To some extent you can improve iOPS with writeback caching or using a SSD caching drive. Again it depends on your use cases, you might save a few seconds, you might save minutes. Thing being if you are doing big transfers, unless you are using your PC to make money like content creation then most people wout disappear and make a cup of tea or they go and browser YouTube for a bit or come on this site, lol.
Click to expand...
OK so for context I work with 50mp image raw files and a few 4k footages. I also work on code written in java and kotlin so in my use case, lots of small files being transfered
 
Recent files on SSDs, archive stuff on RAID10, metadata on a cache drive. The reason I say that is rather than focus on saturating the link, just make the system far more responsive than you'll have had before. I suspect some people might have differing views on RAID10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom