Видео

maybe on ai?

Roberts Route

Man, excellent video!!! I had forgotten about RAM disks. This is an interesting way of configuring the hardware on these machines. I believe the only way to see the full usage of the memory bandwidth is to run multiple apps concurrently. For instance start a large render project, and encrypt a large file at the same time.

Don't use file copy to test connection speed but rather iperf/3

What's the point when SSDs have gone beyond 12000 GB/s write ... on a PC ? Imagine striping that ...

6:09 no. 400GB/s and 800GB/s arent avaiable for CPU cores to use. Only iGPU can take all that memory BW.

Use a cloth tonstop condensation

You probably need multiple cores accessing memory simultaneously to see the bandwidth increase. Not sure how that translates to a RAM disk test.

Yes today its mostly not of interest anymore, only in the case that the software heavily relies on temporary stored data written many times it is interesting to get rid of the wear and tear of the nand chips to shift that part to the non-degradable RAM. We had that issue in the past with TeX and Metafont in the times as DOS was limited to 1 GB of Ram and the rest was transformed to a RAMDisk instead of using HDD this was lightning fast. But today i think the RAM is always better used as RAM. Perhaps very rare cases where have usecase for that.

In pre-SSD days, the lots of small files issue and its associated "keep adding small bits to a file" performance was dominated by the head movement. (And the wait for the drive to rotate to the required position.) The need to access file system data, handle the actual data, and update the file system data. And, in the keep adding case, sometimes having to follow chains of entries to reach the last block - with each added fragment potentially being elsewhere on the drive. Plus, even if the problem file were deleted, the free space on the drive would be fragmented and affect everything else. (Some OS log files were among the worst for continually adding allocation unit by allocation unit spread across the drive.) If you had the option of putting a heavily hit "keep adding" file on a separate, newly formatted, drive then performance could be massively better. The difference between writing file A, then file B versus alternating blocks to A then B could be dramatic. Hence, I am not surprised if the difference between SSD and RAM disk is relatively small. The switch to SSD eliminated head movement! Allocation unit size (whatever approach was used) also had a huge impact. The bigger the AU, the fewer accesses required for file management. What allocation unit size was used for your RAM disks? And is there any way of increasing the size? (The above based on experience of numerous file systems but NOT the native macOS ones.)

At 2:20, you said you created a 128GB RAM Disk, but the visual graphic says 128TB. Maybe one day we’ll have a system with 128TB, but today is not that day 😂

Fantastic work. I know a man has studied filesystems when he mentions "Lots of Small Files" problems. Kudos.

I would guess that RAMDisk performance is not limited by memory performance. It might be the filesystem or some other random infrastructure which might be single threaded. The worse performance of Ultra might also be due to it having a more complex memory subsystem with two separate dies and memory controllers. Some memory accesses will need to go through the opposite die, with higher latency.

What about latency

why are you buying a Mac computer now when the M4 models are coming out next month October?

I'd suggest experimenting with the packet size of the frames and using an independent VLAN/Subnet for your thunderbolt network, (255.255.255.248)

Nothing in the Mac family is worth it ....... Android all the way baby !

Just use external thunderbolt enclosure with nvme disk installed or external thunderbolt network card

Davis Donald Taylor Kenneth Robinson Thomas

Where can I contact you for collabs @matthewdaley7535

I noticed my download speed tests are about 100 megabits slower when I use the SFP port on my router as opposed to using one of the regular lan ports.

0005 Jennings Shoal

It’s not compatible to mesh wifi access points, like Eero or similars. ( loop prevention functionality )

Young Robert Davis Edward Harris Scott

at this point it would be interesting to see how 25Gbe (or even the dual 25Gbe with SMB multichannel) would perform, Sonnet does make such Thunderbolt adapters

Thanks for the testing and answering this question I think many people how been seeking the answer of this question

Speed copying test show 5 Gb bandwidth, not 10 Gb.

Thunderbold does add some over head and also thunderbold 3/4 reserves around 8GiB of the bandwidth for video. When I tried this in windows and linux, it gave me around 20GiB of throughput. This overhead specially impact sequential small transactions, which I thinking is what is going on, copying with multi threads should give you better results, maybe even increasing mtu could help but I don't think the thunderbolt network driver have that feature.

That's really interesting... thanks for sharing!

The small file issue is file creation time. It sounds like the transfer is happening one file at a time. I would probably give you significant sped increase if you had a program that moved multiple files at the same time, this would allow other in flight connections to continue while one connection is stalled creating a file or waiting for the final data flush on closing the file. GNU parallel will do it . (install on a mac with hombrew). Search for "multi file parallel copy linux" to find examples.

Seven words that make algorithms love You."," 알고리즘이 당신을 사랑하게 만드는 일곱 단어. What if you take a splitter/combiner before you plug in the MacBook?

Played with this a while back, think you could get 20G between a windows machine and a linux server.

In windows, there is robocopy, which allows you to specify a /mt:16 command line switch (number can be specific to the number of threads you want). I’ve compiled hundreds of thousands of file at near line speed. Adjust the thread count as you see fit. I wonder if somebody like that exists for Mac.

Powermanagement can also cause this - I've seen Servers where the CPU was almost Idle during Data move/copy hence the Clock speeds were lowered down - which then affected Network performance

I recall some rule about 5-4-3 (which I googled) - The rule mandates that there can only be a maximum of five segments, connected through four repeaters, or concentrators, and only three of the five segments may be mixing segments. This last requirement applies only to 10BASE5, 10BASE2, and 10BASE-FP Ethernet segments. This was back about 25-30 years ago when we were running 10Base2 and token ring networks with Novell. With regards to your cisco - I wonder if that is a little misleading as the switch cpu/ram etc would dictate the capacity and throughput.

Wikipedia: When connected to a Thunderbolt device, the per-lane data rate becomes 10 Gbit/s and the four Thunderbolt lanes are configured as two duplex lanes, each 10 Gbit/s comprising one lane of input and one lane of output. So each lane is 10gb/s - that's your max in one direction unless you can bond and load-balance the channels. There's probably a bit more overhead than ethernet because of the different signal types (data, video) which have to be accounted for. To speed up small files, you could try tar'ing them up. Then the transfer is one file so less latency waiting for the receiving node to work out the file-system for each file mid-transfer. This is the problem with Apple. You only get what they give you. There's no 40/100g network options for when you actually want to go fast. I recently put in a PCIE quad ssd card in my server for $30 + storage drive costs.

Math tells us 100 gigabytes over 10 gigabit should take under 90 seconds. Under 30 seconds over 40 gigabit. Your results are well within any reasonable margin of error, and your bottleneck isn't the network. Run an iperf test to prove network link performance, not a file copy. --a network engineer

Martin Laura Williams Charles Moore Anthony

Does leak seal work on this as anti-condensation?

I believe Thunderbolt Networking has a built-in restriction of 10GbE speeds for some reason. Not sure why but possibly something to do with how it multiplexes data, it leaves room for DisplayPort and PCIe bandwidth.

I opened mine up, removed that noisy fan, stuck an NVME heatsink on it and it's still going strong. No issues and get 9.8gb speeds on my local network👍🏼 the outer aluminum case is a bit hotter, perhaps a metal cooling surface can help with that, but otherwise hapy🤷🏼‍♂️😁

Of course they are the same they are both using ethernet which means the same NIC just because they are going over the a different connector doesn't mean you will get the benefit of it processing packets faster you still are using the NIC to make the packets and read the packets.

I run 2x 10 Gbe Between a Mac Studio M1 and a Ugreen NASync 6800 Pro. The former uses a TB4 IOCREST adapter (~US90 on Aliexpress) paired with the built-in 10G NIC. The latter is running TrueNAS Scale with two motherboard onboard 10G NICs. I get 2GB/second copying a single 108GB file to and from a PCIe 3.0 x4 SSD in the server and the internal drive on the Mac. I only have one additional IOCREST adapters so can't do a 3 channel test. Your drives are likely a bottleneck but there are also lots of stories about struggles when scaling single client performance beyond 25GB or so without serious SMB software tuning and hardware (client and server) hardware. One thing that might come into play is the way your network is configured. Scale requires that each pair of NICs be on a different subnet. Is that the case with your Synology? If not, you might try seeing if that makes a scaling difference although I suspect that your drives may make hard to tease out beyond two channels. But maybe you can match the 2GB I've gotten with a single large file (transfers start to slow quickly with macOS with lots of files)

this seems like there's a bottle neck somewhere.

$me too! in a very small apartment (250sq./F. ) where my APP1 were working fine for four years Bluetooth connexion wise... But since last week, with my brand new AAP2, just opening my fridge door is breaking off the Bluetooth connexion and no more music at all, "further" away in my bathroom... More video like this please for the rest of us!! Thanks

Seems like a typical Apple product :-)

Hello I have a question: The USB-C output port is only for charging the connected device? We can't use it to moune a flash drive or something else?

Very interesting. I believe thunderbolt does error correction and that overhead might be slowing it down. Thunderbolt is just pcie but due to its external natural, its packets can’t be guaranteed to be received on the other end and that would cause massive instability due to it being a DMA protocol.

I wonder if Thunderbolt operates with parallel lanes/channels... Can you retry both transfers at the same time, so that it's essentially copying two things at a time rather than sequentially?

Will this work with my MacBook?