MP 7,1 File transfer rates between MP7,1 and MBP13,3 using 10G and Thunderbolt 3 Bridge

[bxs]

Subject: File transfer rates between MP7,1 and MBP13,3 using 10G and Thunderbolt 3 Bridge

I was wanting to check the transfer data rates between my MP7,1 and my MBP13,3 today.

Both Macs were running Catalina 10.15.3 Build 19D76.

In the past I've used a Thunderbolt bridge between my office MP6,1s as a poor man's 10G network, and was always pleased with the transfer rates.

1. The MP7,1 has 2x 10G ports and I have a Promise SANLink 3 10G/TB3 adapter. So I ran a 10G Cat7 cable between the two Macs using the SANLink 3 adapter to connect to the MBP13,3, and ran AJA to obtain average data transfer read/writes. See attachment.
2. I abandoned the Cat7 connection and used a TB3 certified cable to connect the MP7,1 and the MBP13,3 directly. I then ran the same AJA as I did in 1). See attachment.

In each case I ensured the proper network service order was configured to force the system to use the 10G connection for test 1) and the Thunderbolt Bridge for test 2).

The target device on the MBP13,3 was its internal SSD that is plenty fast enough, right ?

The data transfer rates are very different with the Thunderbolt Bridge yielding a huge improvement over the 10G connection.

• Using 10G: Writes averaged 470 MB/s and Reads averaged 460 MB/s.
• Using Thunderbolt Bridge: Writes averaged 910 MB/s and Reads averaged 937 MB/s.
• Thus, Thunderbolt Bridge indicated it was 2x better than 10G.

It would be of interest to me to know what the average Read/Write rates are using 10G between two MP7,1s vs. using a Thunderbolt Bridge. Anyone with two MP7,1s out there to test this for me.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

My Synology gives me over 900MB/s read writes via 10gbps Ethernet

 

[bxs]

My Synology gives me over 900MB/s read writes via 10gbps Ethernet

Apple's networking software is a lot to be unhappy about. However, their TCP/IP over Thunderbolt is quite good IMO and hugely less expensive than buying 10G cables & switches. At long last Apple has started to include 10G ports; at this time in their iMac Pro and MP7,1.

 

[bxs]

Subject: File transfer rates between MP7,1 and MBP13,3 using 10G and Thunderbolt 3 Bridge

I was wanting to check the transfer data rates between my MP7,1 and my MBP13,3 today.

Both Macs were running Catalina 10.15.3 Build 19D76.

In the past I've used a Thunderbolt bridge between my office MP6,1s as a poor man's 10G network, and was always pleased with the transfer rates.

1. The MP7,1 has 2x 10G ports and I have a Promise SANLink 3 10G/TB3 adapter. So I ran a 10G Cat7 cable between the two Macs using the SANLink 3 adapter to connect to the MBP13,3, and ran AJA to obtain average data transfer read/writes. See attachment.
2. I abandoned the Cat7 connection and used a TB3 certified cable to connect the MP7,1 and the MBP13,3 directly. I then ran the same AJA as I did in 1). See attachment.

In each case I ensured the proper network service order was configured to force the system to use the 10G connection for test 1) and the Thunderbolt Bridge for test 2).

The target device on the MBP13,3 was its internal SSD that is plenty fast enough, right ?

The data transfer rates are very different with the Thunderbolt Bridge yielding a huge improvement over the 10G connection.

• Using 10G: Writes averaged 470 MB/s and Reads averaged 460 MB/s.
• Using Thunderbolt Bridge: Writes averaged 910 MB/s and Reads averaged 937 MB/s.
• Thus, Thunderbolt Bridge indicated it was 2x better than 10G.

It would be of interest to me to know what the average Read/Write rates are using 10G between two MP7,1s vs. using a Thunderbolt Bridge. Anyone with two MP7,1s out there to test this for me.

Hmmmm, so I was wanting to understand why my 10G connection between my MP7,1 and my MBP13,3 was running so poorly. I decided to up the buffer size from the default 1500 MTU to Jumbo frames at 9000 MTU at both ends and gosh, that made a big difference for me. See attachment. 👍 👍 👍

 

[AidenShaw]

My Synology gives me over 900MB/s read writes via 10gbps Ethernet

That's pretty good.

Although, it's far less than an internal NVMe drive can do. Why does Apple so hate internal drives?

What's the CPU utilization at 900MB/s? One big issue with NAS is the CPU load for the networking (unless the system has server NICs with offload engines).

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

That's pretty good.

Although, it's far less than an internal NVMe drive can do. Why does Apple so hate internal drives?

What's the CPU utilization at 900MB/s? One big issue with NAS is the CPU load for the networking (unless the system has server NICs with offload engines).

Do you mean CPU utilization on the Mac CPU or the Synology/NAS CPU?

So the Mac, the utilization is basically 0%. My machine continued to idle at 0-1% when doing the test (this is a 28core machine).

The Synology NAS would go between 20-38% (mostly around 24%) utilization on writes from the Mac to Synology, and between 47-63% (mostly around 53%) on reads from the NAS to the Mac.

This is an atom powered 4 core, 8 bay 2017 model. You could do way better with one of the Xeon powered units.

I think you can get fiber 10G connection that does do some offloading as well (how much I don't know). I have a copper ethernet connection to the Synology to do the 10G.

I have 100GBe fiber drops behind my walls ready to go. I think my next NAS upgrade will probably go to that. Although I hear that 400GBe fiber has just come out recently. Exciting times in networking. Apple is asleep at the switch. We are just getting 10GBe copper on Macs. Cat8 cable is now out and cheap and supports 40GBe on copper. Fiber cabling is now cheap too. The 100GBe fiber can be gotten for relatively cheap and is frankly easier to drop than the cat8. All this going on, and apple not doing squat about it.

Imagine apple putting out an AirCapsule upgrade. One that lets you put in lots of storage. one that gives you PRIVATE iCloud at home but accessible anywhere. One that lets you load up 8 2.5" NVMe U.2 15.36TB SSD drives, and is accessible via cat8 40GBe or 400GBe fiber. There is so much innovation to be had, yet all the pundits keep bobbing their heads over apple saying 'you dont need that'. Pathetic.

 

[bxs]

That's pretty good.

Although, it's far less than an internal NVMe drive can do. Why does Apple so hate internal drives?

What's the CPU utilization at 900MB/s? One big issue with NAS is the CPU load for the networking (unless the system has server NICs with offload engines).

Yes, CPU use during data transfers over 10G between my MP7,1 and the MBP13,3 is not trivial. See attachments.

The file transfer agent smbd on the MBP13,3 and kernel_task on the MP7,1 both are taking CPU cycles during data between the MP7,1 and MBP13,3. Of course the MP7,1 doesn't care as it has tons of horse power, but the MBP13,3 isn't so lucky.

See attachments. This was with AJA on the MP7,1 moving data to/from the MBP13,3.