New setup performance questions

Get help with all aspects of SABnzbd
Forum rules
Help us help you:
  • Are you using the latest stable version of SABnzbd? Downloads page.
  • Tell us what system you run SABnzbd on.
  • Adhere to the forum rules.
  • Do you experience problems during downloading?
    Check your connection in Status and Interface settings window.
    Use Test Server in Config > Servers.
    We will probably ask you to do a test using only basic settings.
  • Do you experience problems during repair or unpacking?
    Enable +Debug logging in the Status and Interface settings window and share the relevant parts of the log here using [ code ] sections.
Post Reply
fsck_
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 2:51 pm

New setup performance questions

Post by fsck_ » January 2nd, 2020, 3:13 pm

recently invested in my home theater setup, and got a synology to use as my media server (among other things). as i have a current gen OLED, and atmos capable surround sound setup, it's become more important for me to grab higher quality rips (40GB+). it seems that it takes a long time for post-download tasks to complete, and as i'm relatively new to this, i'm not sure if this is normal or not. i'm getting what i think are good completion rates with my providers/indexers, and up to 85mbps download speed. once downloads complete the i've seen the unpacking proccess take anywhere from 15-30 min per large download, which seems long to me(please correct me if this is expected).

after doing some research and reading the wiki, it seems like the only thing i couldn't verify was whether or not sabyenc was running for certain. when reviewing the logs i'm only seeing 'yenc' noted, however after ssh'ing into the docker image, i was able to run

Code: Select all

python -c "import sabyenc ; print sabyenc.__version__ "
and verify that sabyenc appears to exist in the image. is there anything else for me to do here?

would adding an SSD read/write cache to the synology help at all? it's unclear to me if using the m.2 slots for this would affect docker image performance. if not, maybe i could use my 4th slot to add a single ssd for downloads folder?

setup
1Gbit fiber internet
DS918+ 8GB RAM
3x 10TB Ironwolf NAS in RAID5
SABNZBD in docker via linuxserverio (latest)


thanks for any help on this

fsck_
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 2:51 pm

Re: New setup performance questions

Post by fsck_ » January 2nd, 2020, 3:38 pm

potential helpful info:
System performance (Pystone): 65129
Download folder speed: 73.1 MB/s
Complete folder speed: 83.7 MB/s

User avatar
sander
Release Testers
Release Testers
Posts: 6803
Joined: January 22nd, 2008, 2:22 pm

Re: New setup performance questions

Post by sander » January 3rd, 2020, 4:22 am

Your NAS has a Intel Celeron J3455 quad-core 1.5GHz, burst up to 2.3GHz CPU, so that is quite OK.
once downloads complete the i've seen the unpacking proccess take anywhere from 15-30 min per large download, which seems long to me(please correct me if this is expected).
There is a big difference between unpacking, and unpacking & repairing & unpacking: if repair is needed, repair can take quite some time (depending on how broken the download was).

SABnzbd will tell you: in your History, on the right hand side, there is a drop down arrow. Click on it and you will get a popup telling what happened. Look at the part "repair".

For example:

Code: Select all

DownloadDownloaded in 4 seconds at an average of 10.8 MB/s
Age: 7m
1 articles were missing
Serversnewsreader.eweka.nl=51.5 MB, [email protected]=118 B
Repair[mytestbin] Verified in 0 seconds, repair is required
[mytestbin] Verified in 0 seconds, repair is required
[mytestbin] Repaired in 1 sec
Unpack[mytestbin] Direct Unpack - Unpacked 1 files/folders in 0 seconds
So:
- "repair is required", so the download was broken
- "Repaired in 1 sec" ... so that was quick


And, on top of this: transcoding or any other post-processing can take a lot more time.

fsck_
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: January 2nd, 2020, 2:51 pm

Re: New setup performance questions

Post by fsck_ » January 8th, 2020, 4:17 pm

thanks for the response. after reviewing some of the logs, i realize that the times i've observed this behavior, there were several passes of repairs that occurred. i think this accounts for the lengthy post-processing.

Post Reply