I currently have Proxmox Backup Server (current up to date with non-subscription repository) installed in a VM in Synology VMM which is running on a Synology DS1819+ (32 GB RAM, mix of HDDs and SSDs), where the backup repository resides on NFS storage. I run the backup server VM with two vNICs, one connected to a 1Gbps NIC on the NAS for management, and the other connected to a 10Gbps storage network NIC. The Proxmox servers are similarly configured (1Gbps management network, 1Gbps VM network, 10Gbps storage network), and MTU is set to 9000 everywhere including the Unifi physical switches on the network. The backup repository and VM storage are both on NFS shares on separate volumes on the NAS. (VM storage on Seagate IronWolf SSDs, backup repository on Seagate IronWolf traditional HDDs with Synology NVMe cache.)
Backup is reliable and fairly fast (> 250 MB/sec) as long as I do NOT enable jumbo frames on the backup server vNICs. If I enable jumbo frames (MTU 9000) the server appears to work properly until I run a backup, at which point the backup will hang until it eventually times out. I've tried lowering the MTU to 8000, 4000 and it just doesn't work. Tried switching from Linux network devices to OVS with OVSBridge, OVSPort, and OVSIntPort...also makes no difference.
I don't get any real error messages out of the process, it just hangs. I would hope that using jumbo frames would improve backup throughput, even if it's only marginally. Any ideas?
Scott
Backup is reliable and fairly fast (> 250 MB/sec) as long as I do NOT enable jumbo frames on the backup server vNICs. If I enable jumbo frames (MTU 9000) the server appears to work properly until I run a backup, at which point the backup will hang until it eventually times out. I've tried lowering the MTU to 8000, 4000 and it just doesn't work. Tried switching from Linux network devices to OVS with OVSBridge, OVSPort, and OVSIntPort...also makes no difference.
I don't get any real error messages out of the process, it just hangs. I would hope that using jumbo frames would improve backup throughput, even if it's only marginally. Any ideas?
Scott
Last edited: