[Message Prev][Message
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message
Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re: Windows Home Server performance - very slow.. any ideas?
Well, go to the bug report link that has been added to my initial
posting
and give them the info they need, then it might get investigated and fixed.
:-D
It doesn't really matter what hardware you're using - Demigrator doesn't
get
CPU bound but you can see that it is running when the streaming issues
appear and it's Demigrator that causes them as killing it off stops any
issues when they start. As you get more drives in your machine the
"problem"
tends to get less noticeable as you're less likely to be streaming from the
same drive as Demigrator decides to hit.
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of keyvan2r
> Sent: 08 December 2009 00:32
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Windows Home Server performance - very slow..
any
> ideas?
>
> Had a look at the thread on wegotserved and sure enough the symptoms
> are very similar to mine. I stopped folder duplication on all shares
> hoping that might reduce the disk thrashing, but I have not noticed
any
> improvement so far.
> I don't have a huge library of media - about 320 DVD movies / tv shows
> and 46 BD ripped to .iso files. As you say the dvds are ok but blu-ray
> stutters. I have about 12,000 flac music files.
> My front end is Media Center based vista/win 7 pc's using my movies
for
> library management and playback with Total Media Theatre for blu-ray
> movies. I have also played around with Cinemar's lobby suite.
> I never had this issue with the old buffalo nas - blu-ray streamed
just
> fine.
> I see on the thread that others are having a problem with HD recorded
> TV (US based I assume) - surely if this something basic Samba, unraid,
> etc can do - transfer data over lan without choking - then WHS is
> failing in it's primary task - file serving!!. Very poor....
>
> I am just concerned if I keep adding to my collection of ripped iso's
> on whs and things don't improve or get sorted out then migration to
> another file-serving solution gets harder the bigger the collection
> becomes..
>
> What a pain!!
>
> --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Phil Harris" <phil@...> wrote:
> >
> > That's my thread. ;-)
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Paul
> > > Sent: 07 December 2009 21:03
> > > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Windows Home Server performance - very
slow..
> any
> > > ideas?
> > >
> > > This looks like quite a good thread to follow
> > > http://forum.wegotserved.com/index.php?/topic/8335-demigrator-exe-
> > > again/ Have you proved it is demigrator causing the issue,
i.e. if
> you
> > > kill the process do you get better performance?
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "keyvan2r" <k1@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the post Phil.
> > > > The choking is all to do with disk access, its very
rare that cpu
> use
> > > monitore on task manager or performance console runs high.
The
> > > indicators which are maxing out are all to do physical disk
access
> seem
> > > to be ones which run to their maximum.
> > > > I looked at Drive Extender Migrator (demigrator) and
the MS tech
> > > brief on WHS Drive extender which covers load-balancing and
> > > duplication.
> > > > There does not seem to be that much one can do about
it!!!
> > > > you can't unistall demigrator becuase then whs won't
see the
> extended
> > > volume. I can't imagine how I would go about testing what
h/w
> > > combination is the problem short of building another
machine!
> > > > All in all, its seems to be hopeless!!
> > > > Thanks anyway, will look for more things to try before
I go back
> to
> > > the drawing board.
> > > >
> > > > --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Phil Harris"
<phil@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Demigrator.exe I mean...
> > > > >
> > > > > Google it and you'll see it's an issue that others
have had...
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx]
> On
> > > Behalf
> > > > > > Of Phil Harris
> > > > > > Sent: 07 December 2009 19:14
> > > > > > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Windows Home Server
performance - very
> > > slow.. any
> > > > > > ideas?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Check task manager for what's taking up CPU
time when it does
> > > that -
> > > > > > you may
> > > > > > well find that it's hitting something called
> "Demingrator.exe"
> > > ... if
> > > > > > it is
> > > > > > then it seems that some hardware combinations
are prone to
> > > Demigrator
> > > > > > taking
> > > > > > a hell of a toll whereas other hardware
(which may be far
> less
> > > > > > powerful)
> > > > > > doesn't seem so affected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On
> > > > > > Behalf
> > > > > > > Of keyvan2r
> > > > > > > Sent: 07 December 2009 18:18
> > > > > > > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > > > > > > Subject: [ukha_d] Windows Home Server
performance - very
> slow..
> > > any
> > > > > > > ideas?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi All
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I moved my DVDs and Blu-rays from my old
Buffalo 3.5Tb NAS
> box
> > > to a
> > > > > > > self-build WHS box. I am using a fairly
high performance MB
> > > (ASUS),
> > > > > > cpu
> > > > > > > (E4600) with 6gb of ram. I have
currently 4 hd's connected
> via
> > > the MB
> > > > > > > sata ports. these consist of 2xWD 1.5tb
and 2x Hitachi 2Tb
> > > drives.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > shows up as 6.37tb with 3.15tb free
after I copied my
> movies &
> > > music.
> > > > > > > I am getting really really sluggish
performance from this
> > > setup.
> > > > > > > I know (think)its all related to
physical disk I/O. The
> > > performance
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > so bad that it virtually makes it
useless for streaming DVD
> or
> > > blu-
> > > > > > ray
> > > > > > > movies. In fact on most occasions it
takes the best part of
> 1
> > > to 2
> > > > > > > minutes to either run WHS console or RDP
into the server.
> > > Sometimes
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > times out...Also opening things like
explorer or even
> double
> > > clicking
> > > > > > > shortcuts takes ages to respond.
> > > > > > > When running the performance monitor
(from server admin
> tools)
> > > it
> > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > like when any of the shares are being
accessed by client
> pc's
> > > all
> > > > > > > physical disk activity indicators go to
full / 100% usaged.
> The
> > > cpu
> > > > > > > load remains ok (between 3% to 20%) but
all indicators such
> as:
> > > > > > > current disk queue length
> > > > > > > avg disk queue length
> > > > > > > avg disk write queue length
> > > > > > > avg disk read queue length
> > > > > > > These all go to 100% or full usage every
2 or 3 seconds
> during
> > > any
> > > > > > form
> > > > > > > of disk access.
> > > > > > > Is this normal?? If so then it seems WHS
is not that good
> for
> > > large
> > > > > > > disk managment. I am sure this can not
be the case.
> > > > > > > Is there any way I can improve disk
performance. Is there
> > > anywhere
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > > settings can be altered to sort this
problem?
> > > > > > > Is there anyone else with this issue
with similar type of
> HD
> > > > > > capacity?
> > > > > > > I have looked on a few forums for WHS
and no joy so far.
> > > > > > > Any help, advice, or even pointing to a
good resource to
> > > research
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > issue would be most appreciated.
> > > > > > > If I can not resolve this I will have to
scrap the WHS
> solution
> > > and
> > > > > > > look at alternatives which work like
unRAID or other disk-
> > > server
> > > > > > > solutions - that would be a real
pain..!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32
Antivirus, version
> of
> > > virus
> > > > > > > signature database 4667 (20091207)
__________
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32
Antivirus.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.eset.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32
Antivirus, version of
> > > virus
> > > > > > signature
> > > > > > database 4668 (20091207) __________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32
Antivirus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.eset.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32
Antivirus, version of
> > > virus
> > > > > > signature database 4668 (20091207) __________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32
Antivirus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.eset.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,
version of
> virus
> > > signature
> > > > > database 4668 (20091207) __________
> > > > >
> > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.eset.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus
> > > signature database 4668 (20091207) __________
> > >
> > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> > >
> > > http://www.eset.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus
> signature
> > database 4668 (20091207) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4668 (20091207) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 4668 (20091207) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
------------------------------------
UKHA_D Main Index |
UKHA_D Thread Index |
UKHA_D Home |
Archives Home
|