Connect. Communicate. Collaborate. Securely.

Home » Kerio User Forums » Kerio Control » At high loading on disk subsystem on gateway slowly answers ping
  •  
maa1

Messages: 144
Karma: -27
Send a private message to this user
My gateway: Dual-core Pentium, 1GB RAM, SATA RAID1, 1Gbit Local Network, KWF 6.4.2 + KMS 6.4.2
(CPU load only 5-10%)

At high loading on disk subsystem on gateway slowly answers ping:

Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=887ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1127ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=340ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=915ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=601ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=358ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1494ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=528ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=214ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=1842ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=5ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=903ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=640ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128

Why so occurs?

[Updated on: Tue, 15 April 2008 07:54]

  •  
winkelman

Messages: 2119
Karma: 3
Send a private message to this user
Probably because the disk system is throwing a lot of interupts (IRQ's). This preempts other processes from the CPU or server resources.

Why does your firewall/gateway have such a high disk load anyway? Can't be because of KWF...
  •  
maa1

Messages: 144
Karma: -27
Send a private message to this user
winkelman
Why does your firewall/gateway have such a high disk load anyway?
KMS heavy loads disk subsystem Sad
  •  
winkelman

Messages: 2119
Karma: 3
Send a private message to this user
I've got KMS on the same machine as well. You just have to make sure the disk subsystem is up to the job... Best option is a RAID-10 with 15.000 rpm SCSI disk. Otherwise perhaps RAID-1 with such disks (that's what I've got). But steer clear of RAID-5 (slow write performance) and best to avoid SATA as well (slowern small concurrent disk operations like KMS users than SCSI).
  •  
maa1

Messages: 144
Karma: -27
Send a private message to this user
Whether performance will increase if to use SATA-controller with NCQ supporting? Or me will help only SAS/SCSI?
  •  
winkelman

Messages: 2119
Karma: 3
Send a private message to this user
maa1 wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 06:37

Whether performance will increase if to use SATA-controller with NCQ supporting? Or me will help only SAS/SCSI?

Performance certainly may increase a bit with an NCQ controller (mind you, the hard disks must alos support this AFAIK).

But I have yet to read a test where NCQ on SATA makes more then a few percent difference, so it will not help a lot.

With lots of small file operations, it's mostly access latency that's causing delays. And the best way to combat access time is to use high-RPM disk drives. Thus the advice to use 15.000RPM drives. So that would imply SAS/SCSI, since there aren't any 15.000RPM SATA drives available I believe. If you have to use SATA, you could go for the 10.0000RPM drives that are out there.

Just check specs for access time.

I assume you now use 7200RPM SATA disks?
Previous Topic: How to get a list of connected vpn clients
Next Topic: External HTTPS requests don't work - "HTTP: Non-ASCII bytes detected in HTTP request"
Goto Forum:
  


Disclaimer:
Kerio discussion forums are intended for open communication between forum members and may contain information and material posted by members which may be useful in learning about Kerio products. The discussion forums are not intended to provide technical support for any specific product. Any information implied or expressed in the discussion forums is that of the posting member. Kerio is in no way responsible for the information posted in the forums, or its accuracy. Kerio employees may participate in the discussions, but their postings do not represent an offical position of the company on any issues raised or discussed. Kerio reserves the right to monitor and maintain the forums to promote free and accurate exchange of information.

Current Time: Fri Nov 24 10:35:05 CET 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00416 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.
Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.4.