locked
Working EX470 Performance Boost RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • Like many of you I also have been disappointed with the performance of my HP EX470.  I have tried everything I could think of:

    • I upgraded the RAM to 1 GB.
    • Bypassing the WHS disk manager by just creating shares on the C drive for speed tests. 
    • Buying CAT6 cables for my gigabit network.
    • Upgrading the SiS191 network driver.
    • Disabling all the WHS services to free up the cpu.  (demigrator.exe needs to be fixed. At the very least don't run it at normal priority!)

    Even after all that, the fastest I could get was about 20-22 MB/s up and 8-10 MB/s down.

     

    As a last ditch effort I purchased a D-Link gigabit switch (DGS-2205) that support jumbo frames. My old linksys gigabit switch (EG008W) did not support jumbo frames.  On my desktop I turned on Jumbo frames and set them to 7000 (the max for my network card).  I then set Jumbo Frames to 7000 on the EX470 over RDP.

     

    You can turn on jumbo frames by going to Device Manager -> Network Adapters -> Your net card (SiS191 for HP EX470) -> Right click -> Properties -> Advanced Tab - > Jumbo Frame. The last step may be different for other net cards.

     

    The result was amazing. Now I get 26-32 MB/s up and 35-41 MB/s down. Much closer to what it should be.

     

    I'm going to try to find a network card that will work at the largest 9000 byte frame supported by the Sis191 to see what that yields.

     

    I don't understand why there is such a performance increase. In theory using jumbo frames should not increase performance by this much. 

     

    Keep in mind that if you want to turn on Jumbo Frames it will only work if you have a desktop nic that supports jumbo frames as well as a switch.

     

    -Steve

    Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:27 PM

All replies

  • Here's an article I found with good info on jumbo frames...

    http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30201/54/

     

    From reading the article, it sounds like turning on jumbo frames can actually degrade your network performance if not all devices on your network support jumbo frames, otherwise you end up with dropped and fragmented frames if a device with jumbo frames enables tries to communicate with another device that doesn't support jumbo frames.  In my situation, I have a Linksys Wireless-N router, Netgear switches and two PC's with NIC's that all support gigabit speed with jumbo frames.  And a HP Mediasmart Server on the way that will also support jumbo frames.  But I have a laptop with an Ethernet port that only supports up to 100Mbs.  My Xbox 360 that I use as a Media Center extender also only supports up to 100Mbs.  And I have a PS3 that does support gigabit but does not support jumbo frames.  So in my case switching on jumbo frames would probably not be a good idea.

    Sunday, December 2, 2007 1:50 AM
  • steve... for your clients are you using Vista ????
    Sunday, December 2, 2007 2:13 AM
    Moderator
  • Yes, Vista SP1

    Sunday, December 2, 2007 2:10 PM
  •  azcoyote wrote:

    Here's an article I found with good info on jumbo frames...

    http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30201/54/

     

    From reading the article, it sounds like turning on jumbo frames can actually degrade your network performance if not all devices on your network support jumbo frames, otherwise you end up with dropped and fragmented frames if a device with jumbo frames enables tries to communicate with another device that doesn't support jumbo frames.  In my situation, I have a Linksys Wireless-N router, Netgear switches and two PC's with NIC's that all support gigabit speed with jumbo frames.  And a HP Mediasmart Server on the way that will also support jumbo frames.  But I have a laptop with an Ethernet port that only supports up to 100Mbs.  My Xbox 360 that I use as a Media Center extender also only supports up to 100Mbs.  And I have a PS3 that does support gigabit but does not support jumbo frames.  So in my case switching on jumbo frames would probably not be a good idea.

     

    That can be true but you can fix that by having two switches.  One for your jumbo packet machines and one for your standard packet machiens and plug them both into the router.  After using that setup I have not seen any performance decrease to my standard packet size machines.

    Sunday, December 2, 2007 2:15 PM
  • I added a 2GB 667MHz stick of RAM TO mine and WOW I was amazed at the perfomance increase.


    Keep in mind that when the OS boots it can range from 615-812MB of RAM before you do anything so at 512 you ar epaging the disk constantly...

    Now my system purrs with 1.2GB FREE

    I have had 6 users all hititng the box pictures and music (not video)

    And no slow downs.

    My only issues are with some missing features in the ported version of Webguide but that is a topic for another thread.
    Sunday, December 2, 2007 3:42 PM
  • What kind of transfers do you get now?

     

    Sunday, December 2, 2007 3:48 PM
  • Well it is the same old story.

    The more dirves I add to the system (Max 4) the quicker I wil ldrop into the 10-20/s range.

    If I have ONE TB drive there I can say between 40-60.

    It has something to do with the extender technology 100%.

    At the moment I will get 20-40
    (20-30 sustained)

    I have two 500GB Drives in and a 300Gb lcie USB drive.


    I will be planning on adding more drives to the system down the road.

    Now mind you that I am transferring HDfiles.. so some of these files are HUGE such as 18GB or 12Gb files.

    I have no issue with smaller files even up 2GB. Files that big don't seem to have the same effect as the HD files.

    Hope my 2 cents helps although I have answer to the question other then more evidence to a software driven bug. =(


    EDIT: However HUUUUUGE increase in speed via browsing and RDP. I mean NIGHT and day. I would wait sometimes 2-3 minutes for music to load over browser. It is now taking 2-3 seconds if not instant.
    Sunday, December 2, 2007 3:53 PM
  • John -

     

    Just read another thread of yours (http://forums.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2489019&SiteID=50).

     

    So which is it? Were you amazed at the difference (this post), or were you dissapointed (other post)? Or both...you were amazed by the increase, but still dissapointed?

     

    I'm thinking about throwing 2GB stick in to my ex475.

     

    Thanks.

     

    Monday, December 3, 2007 1:21 AM
  • It was kind of both.

    I wrote that post a little too early.

    After playing around with the system I found that when the WHS Console is closed the system runs 2x faster then when it is open.

    What I was disappointed about was that for some reason I expected lightening fast speeds all around no matter what I was doing.

    I wrote that postabout 2 hours after I dropped the RAM in and to be honest it was a bit premature.

    the 2GB did in fact make abig difference in a positive way I just was expecting it not matter what I did.

    The WHS console is a CPU/RAM pig. They really need to take a look and see why this OS wants to use 600+MB RAM right off boot.

    Seems very high.


    I appologize for the confusion between posts.
    Monday, December 3, 2007 11:07 AM
  • Cool. And the process to replace the ram (which I know you described earlier) is easy/painless?

     

    Monday, December 3, 2007 11:53 AM
  • Veyr easy and very painless.

    Just follow exactly what I said and you will have no problems.
    Monday, December 3, 2007 12:25 PM
  • Has anyone found a source of 2Gb DDR2-667 DIMMs with a latency of 3-3-3-10 or 3-3-3-12 latency that will run at 2.0 volts for the HP?

    Most of the DDR2-800 latency these days runs at 4-4-4-12 and some even at 5-5-5.
    Monday, December 3, 2007 1:25 PM
  •  

    Heres 2Gb DDR2-667 at 3-3-3-12 2.2v...

     

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146567

     

    Monday, December 3, 2007 7:34 PM
  •  asty1 wrote:

     

    Heres 2Gb DDR2-667 at 3-3-3-12 2.2v...

     

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146567

     

    That's two 1Gb modules. Sad  The HP EX470 only has one slot.

    The review notes also say this:

    CPU-Z says the advertised timings of 3-3-3-12 are at 533Mhz not 667Mhz, which by SPD are 5-3-3-15. A little misleading. The waiting period for the rebate. Grrrrr...


    The HP uses the memory timings specified by SPD, so the SPD timings are what you want to look at.

    Edit:  I've seen been informed by others that no 2Gb DDR2-667 modules exist with 3-3-3 latency.  There may be some 4-4-4 DDR2-800 modules which have the SPD set at 3-3-3 for DDR-667 speed, but I don't know what those are.

    For now, I am looking at these:

    1Gb DDR2-667 with SPD of 3-3-3
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231093&Tpk=F2-5400CL3S-1GBGA

    2Gb DDR2-667 with SPD of 4-4-4
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231119&Tpk=F2-5300CL4S-2GBPQ
    Monday, December 3, 2007 10:52 PM
  • Keep in mind there is only 1 ram slot on the Ex470 and 475.
    Monday, December 3, 2007 11:00 PM
  • Can someone explain to me  why the latency difference is so important in the server where most of the time the big deal is file transfer?

     

    Thank you,

    dubbly

    Tuesday, December 4, 2007 11:57 PM
  •  dubbly wrote:

    Can someone explain to me  why the latency difference is so important in the server where most of the time the big deal is file transfer?

    Memory latency affects all aspects of Windows performance, including disk and cache performance.


    Now, we're not talking massive performance increases here.  DDR2-667 with 3-3-3 latency might produce 2% better performance than DDR2-667 with 5-5-5 latency.  However, if I am going to do this upgrade, I want to get the best possible result the first time; I don't intend to open my HP again.
    Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:39 AM
  • For those of you interested in Upgrading your RAM in your HP MediaSmart server, we wrote a tutorial last week with snapshots and step-by-step instructions:  You can get to the tutorial here:  http://www.MyHomeServer.com

    You can go a MAX of 2GB (since there is only one slot, the largest we could find was a 2GB stick

    Monday, December 10, 2007 11:55 AM
  • Steve & JontheTech & Listers,

     

    I am planning on upgrading /installing to 2 gb RAM on my HP EX470

     

    But before I do, would you recommend any free or low cost "Benchmarking" programs to use before the upgrade and again after?

     

    Kind of new to this server stuff, so wasn't sure if Windows Media Server should use a PC benchmarking program vs a server benchmarking program.

     

    Thanks in advance for any guidance.

     

    Jay

     

    Saturday, February 2, 2008 12:08 AM
  •  

    And remember....upgrading your memory *VOIDS* your warranty!  ;-)

     

    The nice thing about going with 2GB is:

     

    1) you aren't ugprading agian. ;-)

     

    2) tons of headroom for add-ins

     

    3) some room for a ramdisk

     

    Even with a lot of memory-hungry add-ins, you rarely should push past 1GB used or thereabouts.  So I can't imagine why anybody wth 2GB in a EX47x can't afford to give up a bit of that, say 256mb ram disk for scratch.  The OS could then be tweaked to use drives mounted at this scratch vs. real drives.  In rare instances.

     

    Of course, doing so would require extenisve testing to ensure no reliability or potenital data-loss ssue was created.  I do not recommend anybody do this unless they really know what they are doing and realize that without proper controlled testing, you could actually SLOW DOWN your server with such tweaks.  Tweaks that work beneficially almost all of the time are rare.  The guys at MS aren't idiots, things are usually engineered with the proper-trade-offs consdiered.

     

    Almost universally such tweaks themselves only work due to poor application design and extensive reliance upon temporary data that is persisted to the hard drive.  So if you find you are putting things left and right into RAMDISK, you are probably doing more harm than good.

     

    Once I get my bigger fish fried, I'm going to play around with this and see if I can have the same kind of luck I had in the past w/ XP.  I've never tried these tricks on 2003 before.

     

    Ryan

     

    Saturday, February 2, 2008 12:40 PM
  • I'm just replying for anyone else who stumbles on this discussion when trying to set up WHS, as I did recently. I set up jumbo frames on my network and am amazed that there do not seem to be any problems. I use an Iphone and xbox 360 which should be causing trouble but apparently aren't. I've heard that remote access might be slowed by jumbo frames and will need to test that next.  However, I'm reaching speeds that Steve posted above.

    For anyone wanting to know the setup, I have a Belkin N+ wireless router and upgraded the memory on an HP EX470. Otherwise, everything is pretty standard. One extra thing I did was to update the drivers for the network card... which now allows frames to be set at 9600 instead of the 7000 posted above. So, I don't know if it's the router I'm using, the new drivers, or something else... but it works!
    Tuesday, August 4, 2009 10:05 PM