Selfhosted

61451 readers

549 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

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
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.
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:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

Slow sab tips? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 years ago by tabularasa@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I recently moved from a non docker ubuntu 18.04 setup to a full docker 22.04 setup. I used to get a pretty consistent 95-105 MB/s in sab. I can't seem to get more than 70 MB/s in my new setup. Both my usenet providers are setup the same and using 50 connections. I'd love to blame docker, but thought i see if anyone here has seen this as well. Any suggestions on what to look at?

all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] plague_sapiens@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This could be the I/O overhead caused by docker while using NAT networking: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21889053/what-is-the-runtime-performance-cost-of-a-docker-container#26149994

[–] tabularasa@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's a large penalty, wow.

[–] plague_sapiens@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's huge for networking. VPN gateway (for accessing the VPN WAN over LAN) on the host is 20-40% faster than dockerized...

[–] tabularasa@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I'm using NAT for sure. All my containers are on a different subnet than the host.

[–] Lem453@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

The article your linked is citing a paper from 2014. Seems hard the believe the network stack hasn't been significantly reworked in 10 years. That being said I don't have anything to refute this.

Does the above still apply if using a glutun VPN docker with other containers connecting directly to glutun?

[–] seang96@spgrn.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

One thing I found when testing.my settings was reducing the number of connections can cause better results. Is the speed your getting through the test button or actual downloads? The test also tests other things for the bottleneck so maybe something else is being the bottleneck like disk speeds.

[–] tabularasa@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Actual downloads going to the same storage array as the previous system. Same NFS lun even. I'll try the test button and playing with the number of connections. Thanks! Will report back.