Help with my first snap server! (really slow transfer rates)

[Ogi]

Hello!

I was given an old SNAP 1000 snapserver (30GB) which I want to re-purpose as a media server.

I want to put a bigger hard disk in it (200GB) but I read that the 2.0 software version will not support it (no 48bit LBA). So I updated the software to 4.0.830.

My issue now is that the snap server is really slow. I cannot transfer files faster than 500kb/s and I keep getting timeout errors etc... (note, this is with the original hard disk).

I heard on these forums that the 4.x software is slower than the 3.4 (which apparently is the best for older snap servers), but I don't think it is meant to be this slow.

I took apart the snap server to see if I could upgrade the memory, but my version has the memory soldered onto the board, so no upgrade possible

Can anyone help me? If this is an issue caused by the software, could anyone give me a copy of the 3.4 software? (As this is an old server, it is no longer under warranty and Adaptec will not give me any updates, the 4.0 software was the only one I managed to find on the internet).

Thank you!

[blue68f100]

The Snap 1000 units are not know for speed. We have done some speed test on most all units. Check the stickys at the top of the trheads.

The speed you mention sounds like a v1 1000. If the OS is in flash ram, you are stuck with v4. If not you could roll back using a image file. FTP will give you the best speeds but using the samba for SMB will kill it greatly.

[cosh68]

i have a similar problem with my two snap units, any ideas to speed them up & why so different ?

daft q were are the stickys ?

both my snap 1000 series upgraded from 80GB 3.4.803(UK) units to 160GB
4.0.830(UK) software
3.1.1 & 2.0.2 hardware
2.1.364 & 3.4.758 bios

are transfering very slow from a P4 3.2Ghz pc running 2K 30MB file respectively,
1668KB/s dwn 1867KB/s up
4156KB/s dwn 3640KB/s up

PC comparrison on same network same file

from same PC to a VIA 1Ghz file server
8483KB/s dwn 8245KB/s up

From same PC to a Sempron 2300+ PC
9610KB/s dwn 10307KB/s up

Thanx..

[Ogi]

The speed you mention sounds like a v1 1000.

Well this is the thing. It was much faster before I updated the OS. It has only been this slow after I updated to v4.0 of the software.

I suspect that this snap server has the OS in flash, you say that this means I cannot downgrade to a 3.4?

Also to note that while transferring files, there appears no slowdown on the snap server itself. I can browse and ftp simultaneously and it is very responsive.

Also note that the slowness is only with Windows Networking, if I use NFS on my Linux machine, I can saturate the link at about 10MB/s.

[blue68f100]

V4 has messed a bunch of older snaps up. If your is a version 2 you can backup the os my using a image file. This is the only way if it's not a v1 that has OS in flashram.

[Ogi]

V4 has messed a bunch of older snaps up.

Oh, thats not good

If your is a version 2 you can backup the os my using a image file. This is the only way if it's not a v1 that has OS in flashram.

And how do I know what version it is? I looked at the server and it said "Rev-D" on it. I don't know if that means anything.

Also, can anybody give me a copy of the 3.4 OS? I can't get a copy myself for reasons I mentioned before. Even if it is not possible to "downgrade" I would like to try.


Thanks.

[blue68f100]

Check your platformbytes that will determine it most of the time.

cd de platformbytes will give the info. But I'm not where I can look the info up.

On a v1 it would prepare the HD and set it up without an image file. So install a clean (small 2-10gig) HH and see if it will make it bootable. If not it's more than likely a v2.

[Phoenix32]

I have used v4.0.860 on several 1000 with no problems or slowdowns (in fact it got a little better, not worse).

See how your drive is set (Master or Cable Select) and then try the other one.

[Ogi]

Check your platformbytes that will determine it most of the time.

cd de platformbytes will give the info. But I'm not where I can look the info up.

I found one in BIOS > platformbytes, the value is :

Platform Bytes are "3.1.1"

On a v1 it would prepare the HD and set it up without an image file. So install a clean (small 2-10gig) HH and see if it will make it bootable. If not it's more than likely a v2.

Hmm, I don't think I have any spare Hard disks lying around, but the moment I find one I will give this a try (although I'm suspecting it is a v1).

I have used v4.0.860 on several 1000 with no problems or slowdowns (in fact it got a little better, not worse).

Nice! Alas, not in my case. Indeed it could be that it is the hard disk, or something else, but all I know is that it did not max out at 500kbyte/s before I updated the OS. I shall try another hard disk anyway (see above) and that might shed some light on the situation.

See how your drive is set (Master or Cable Select) and then try the other one.

The drive was set to Cable Select, switched it to Master, but have not got any real change out of it.

[Ogi]

Hello again!

Update,

I found a 40GB hard disk and put it in. The Snap server does not boot. It seems to freeze and the lights are as follows:

Link: Green solid
System and disk: Blink in unison.

Does this mean I have a v2 snap server?

I am in the process of looking at the original Snap server hard disk on my PC, so far it seems not to have a (standard) partition table of any sort. I'm thinking of DD-ing the contents of the 30GB to the 40GB and seeing if the snap boots then.

[blue68f100]

Yes, OS on HD. Use the instruction in the FAQ's and wiki to copy the boot tracks to the new HD. And make a copy of the boot tracks for when ever a drive fails, so you can recover.

[Ogi]

Yes, OS on HD. Use the instruction in the FAQ's and wiki to copy the boot tracks to the new HD. And make a copy of the boot tracks for when ever a drive fails, so you can recover.

Ok, Done That. My 250GB Replacement Disk came. I installed it, dd'ed the contents and reinitialised the drive. Format gave me 233GB usable space (not a very efficient filesystem, is it?).

Thats all good, except that the transfer rates are still really slow. Only difference now is that they vary from 200Kbytes/s to 1,2Mbytes/s.

Is this really the best transfer rate I can hope for with smb/cifs networking? Would any of the other OS'es provide better performance??

[blue68f100]

With most any HD the size is raw before the file system. So 233g is pretty much std as will all OS including MS NTSF. As far as transfer rates as long as you use smb/cifs you will use samba to handle the transfer. The only way around it is NFS, or use only FTP.

If you move to a larger or newer units this picks up. But the 1000 were the second model that Snap Applinace made, in 1998. So if you compare what hardware was being used in 1998, these were fast units 9 yrs ago. So use 9 yr old hardware with your snap and you want notice it being slow. Technology has revolved in 9 yrs, with the exception of MS New MEII (vista). Microsoft always find a way to mess things up.

If you want raw speed move to a 4500.

[Ogi]

Originally Posted by blue68f100

With most any HD the size is raw before the file system. So 233g is pretty much std as will all OS including MS NTSF.

Yeah, but I formatted it on my linux machine with XFS, and it took something like 50MB off the raw value. Not that it matters that much, I didn't really look that much into it. I'm good with 233GB.

As far as transfer rates as long as you use smb/cifs you will use samba to handle the transfer. The only way around it is NFS, or use only FTP.

Yeah, I noticed NFS is much better throughput wise. I have no problems using NFS, the issue is that I need to set this up for Windows Users, who do not have NFS clients. I looked into this ability for windows XP, but have so far found no free NFS clients which appear just as standard network drives on XP, if anyone has any ideas I would be very interested

If you move to a larger or newer units this picks up. But the 1000 were the second model that Snap Applinace made, in 1998. So if you compare what hardware was being used in 1998, these were fast units 9 yrs ago. So use 9 yr old hardware with your snap and you want notice it being slow.

Hehehe, The snap server is replacing my old mini Server, which is a nice 233MHz Slot 1 Pentium 2, with 128MB Ram (The machine had a PCI SATA card, and 5 x 250GB drives in software raid 5). My family was complaining about the noise and size of the thing. Plus as I'm moving out I want the old server to myself :P Saying that, my newest PC is from 2001, all the others are from the 90's, I even have a DX-4 still going strong all these years.

I was just suprised with the performance, thats all. If there is no real performance benefit to downgrading to a 3.4 OS then I wouldn't consider it really. I just hope that the snap server will be able to keep up with movie and music streaming (which is what it will be primarily used for)

Technology has revolved in 9 yrs, with the exception of MS New MEII (vista). Microsoft always find a way to mess things up.

Lol, I really do not have much else to say, except I agree =) Although personally I have not used windows since 99, so it does not make much of a difference to me anymore.

If you want raw speed move to a 4500.

Oh don't remind me =) I had a 4500, a nice rackmount with 4 hard drives in it, but I managed to mess up the motherboard during an upgrade, so I bricked it (I have since replaced the Snap motherboard with a mini-itx, and loaded linux on it. It now serves as a music/itunes/slim server).

I still have a Snap 2000 that I have not done anything with as of yet, if I have any issues/questions with it I'm sure to post here again

[blue68f100]

The early 1000 do not really like v4. I think its a memory restrant. Some of the 1000 only had 32meg of system ram. Where most all of the other have at least 64meg.

As far as your Window uses have them connect via FTP. Then let the windows machine take care of the protocol.

[Ogi]

The early 1000 do not really like v4. I think its a memory restrant. Some of the 1000 only had 32meg of system ram. Where most all of the other have at least 64meg.

I suspected that one of the reasons may well have been the low RAM, which is one of the reasons I first looked to upgrade the snaps RAM (which is unfortunately soldered on). I have 32 MB of RAM. That is one of the reasons for my constant bugging of people on these forums for a 3.4 OS. The only reason I upgraded was for the large disk support and I would have been happy with the first OS that supported disks bigger than 137GB. I was worried that the v4 would be too much of a drain on the resources, but as I said, the snap server (and all the other ones, including the one I bricked) are hand downs, whose warranty had expired and I was unable to get the updates from the Adaptec Website, The only version I was able to download from another place was the v4 software, so thats what I used.

As far as your Window uses have them connect via FTP. Then let the windows machine take care of the protocol.

Would that provide a "drive letter" on the my computer area for them to access? Also the main reason for this snap server is for music and movie streaming, which I don't think ftp can do. (music primarily through winamp and itunes, and movies primarily through XBMC). To my knowledge FTP is not a good protocol for this.

[blue68f100]

You can map network drives as ftp, just need to use the ftp://servername. As far as keeping up with your music that may be questionable. It will all depend on how many users and traffic it generates.

V4 on units with 64meg works fine. You can turn off services you do not need. Just go through the networking screens and un-check anything you are not using.

If I recall the factory had a way to backup any OS, but sadly this was not released to the public. Most units were not design for users to service them.

[Phoenix32]

Originally Posted by Ogi

Format gave me 233GB usable space (not a very efficient filesystem, is it?).

Okay, everyone pay attention. This is a COMMON misunderstanding....


To an Operating System, 1K byte = 1024 bytes

To a hard disk manufacturer, 1K byte = 1000 bytes

Do the math... This is where the loss is...

[Phoenix32]

If it is any help, I have a SNAP 1000 with v4.0.860 OS and an original Quantum 30 GB drive. I use it for FTP once in a while. My Speeds measured by AnalogX NetStat Live are as follows;

Windows Explorer Read = 1.7MB average
Windows Explorer Write = 1.6MB average

FTP Read = 1.7MB average
FTP Write = 1.7MB average

It was a little faster using v3.4.807, but not much. Yes you can downgrade the OS, but you need a special Downgrade OS file to do so. I am still using v4.0.860 on my SNAP 1000 beause I had all kind of "issues" with Windows XP Pro, FTP use, and Security crap when using v3.4.80x. Just forget the SNAP OS units for Vista, Win2K03, and Win2K08 use.

If you want fast, buy another Guardian unit... Even the SNAP 4x00 units are no speed demons. Just facts of the SNAP OS units...