this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2026
105 points (99.1% liked)

Selfhosted

61070 readers
1271 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
105
[Solved] Any idea why those two drives are dramatically slower than the rest? (feddit.org)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Lemmchen@feddit.org to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I have eight identical drives connected to an ~~LSI 9207-8i~~ ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate mainboard.

They're currently all running badblocks -b 8192 -c 2048 -p 0 -s -t 0 -v -w /dev/disk/by-id/ata-WDC_WUH722424ALE6L4_[XXXXXXXX] each.

While sda and sdb achieve almost 300MB/s, sdg and sdh struggle to even get to 200MB/s. That's a 50% difference!

All of my drives are recognized as SATA3, confirmed by smartctl -a /dev/sd[a-h] | grep SATA showing SATA Version is: SATA 3.5, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s)

There's no CPU bottleneck either AFAICT:

Any idea what could be the issue of that? Is such a dramatic speed difference to be expected of Ultrastar drives?
Are these drives just bad?

Edit: Mainboard configuration:

Edit2: Okay, apparently the ASM1061 which provides the two extra SATA3 ports is connected to the CPU via a single PCIe 2.0 x1 lane, which provides only 4gbps (=500MB/s) of raw throughput.
I think I have found the culprit and the problem should disappear once I connect the drives to my LSI 9207-8i HBA card.

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 60 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Without googling the specs, are those two on a different channel? ie the chipset has 6 and then another chip handles 2 or vice versa

[–] Lemmchen@feddit.org 38 points 1 week ago

Yep, that was the issue.

[–] Tolstoy@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

While browsing the manual you're on point. I bet the 2 drives are plug into SATA3_A1 and A2. These 2 are handled by an ASMedia ASM1061

[–] jrgd@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago

Based on OP's edit, that looks correct. Unless OP checks the topology and can make the claim that drives from the main chipset are the slow ones, secondary chipset drives will tend to perform slower, and the ASMedia ASM1061 has several reports online of poor to trash performance compared to baseline.

Best bet if the full performance is necessary out of every drive would be finding a decent quality PCI-E SATA III riser card that doesn't use a known flawed driver chip rather use the two 'extra' ports on the motherboard.

[–] northendtrooper@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As a dude from the peanut gallery still learning, this was an interesting read. Never thought about the importance of what channel the sata cables are plugged into.

[–] MuttMutt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

It's one of the reasons why getting a SAS controller is really nice, backplanes make it even better.

I was preforming a burn with 10 X 8TB drives on a controller that already had a couple operating ZFS pools totaling 18 X 4TB drives and a couple SSD's and there was no slow downs. A SAS3008 controller can support over 6000 MB/s and has a PCI Express X8 3.0 bus.

I've been building my servers and network out of old enterprise gear for a while now. It uses more power but the things you can do are truly amazing. Sadly the ai boom drove prices way up compared to a couple years ago, what I bought for 900 in 2024 is running around 1500 today.

[–] cabillaud@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What are "d/s" and "f/s"?

E: I rtfm and.... It's discard requests and flush requests

[–] Lemmchen@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I actually needed to look that up, since I didn't know either. So, thank you, I've learned something new because of your question.

          d/s    The number (after merges) of discard requests
                 completed per second for the device.

          f/s    The number (after merges) of flush requests
                 completed per second for the device.  This counts
                 flush requests executed by disks. Flush requests are
                 not tracked for partitions.  Before being merged,
                 flush operations are counted as writes.

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/iostat.1.html

(Discards being TRIM operations on SSDs, I imagine.)