D-Link Forums

The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => D-Link Storage => DNS-345 => Topic started by: kave on April 28, 2012, 03:18:49 AM

Title: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: kave on April 28, 2012, 03:18:49 AM
I have two computers in My Network which can copy to each other at 110 Mb/s when I copy large files between them.
However, when either of them copies to the d-link 345 they are down to 25-30 MB/s. I have tried both afp and smb. I have four brand new 2TB drives as raid 5.

When both are copying to the nas they are down to 20 MB/s.

Why did D-Link equip it with two interfaces when it cant use one properly?
I am really considering a ReadyNas instead.

I will try on windows 7 tomorrow to see if is the same story there.
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: kave on April 29, 2012, 11:35:05 PM
 I made a stripe setup of the drives instead. Now I get 50MB/s from Mac clients.
Windows 7 clients are down to 20MB/s.

Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: HunterGeo on June 17, 2012, 12:43:54 AM
Hi kave,

I am experiencing even slower transfer speeds - around 100KB in twelve hours. Count yourself lucky! :P
Sorry, I can't help you out, but this seems to be a major problem with the -345...
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: pippomostarda on June 23, 2012, 09:28:03 AM
I have slow performances too...
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: Leathal on June 24, 2012, 08:36:59 AM
Quote from: kave on April 28, 2012, 03:18:49 AM
I have two computers in My Network which can copy to each other at 110 Mb/s when I copy large files between them.
However, when either of them copies to the d-link 345 they are down to 25-30 MB/s. I have tried both afp and smb. I have four brand new 2TB drives as raid 5.

When both are copying to the nas they are down to 20 MB/s.

Why did D-Link equip it with two interfaces when it cant use one properly?
I am really considering a ReadyNas instead.

I will try on windows 7 tomorrow to see if is the same story there.

Even though RAID 5 is the best for protecting your data it takes a performance hit. SATA hard drives are still pretty slow compared to SAS no matter what hardware you use, since the Dlink doesn't support SAS you can always try using WD new VelociRaptor 10k SATA drives which come in 1TB size.

The over all speed also depends on your switches forwarding speed. A mickey mouse Layer2 Gbit switch can't handle heavier loads properly verses a L3 Gbit switch which costs quite a bit more. The difference is night and day.
 
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: pippomostarda on June 24, 2012, 11:41:20 PM
Ok, but 345 performance are significantly slower than my single disk wd my book live...
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: an3k on January 22, 2013, 05:16:51 PM
The DNS-345 is slow because of it's slow processor. Test it yourself:
Log into the webinterface and open Management > System Status > Resource Monitor

Now copy at least 1 GB to the NAS and check the CPU Utilitazion.
After the file is copied to the NAS, copy it back to your Computer and watch the CPU Utilitazion again.

The bottleneck is the CPU. HDDs and LAN is fast enough! That's why i also bought a Qnap TS-459 Pro II - it costs more than twice but has a much faster CPU, upgradable RAM and more professional features like iSCSI and such things.

With the same HDDs and settings (4HDDs RAID0, no encryption, etc.) i get ~35MB/s with the DNS-345 but ~120MB/S with the TS-459.
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: HunterGeo on January 22, 2013, 05:23:08 PM
Quote from: an3k on January 22, 2013, 05:16:51 PM
The DNS-345 is slow because of it's slow processor. Test it yourself:
Log into the webinterface and open Management > System Status > Resource Monitor

Now copy at least 1 GB to the NAS and check the CPU Utilitazion.
After the file is copied to the NAS, copy it back to your Computer and watch the CPU Utilitazion again.

The bottleneck is the CPU. HDDs and LAN is fast enough! That's why i also bought a Qnap TS-459 Pro II - it costs more than twice but has a much faster CPU, upgradable RAM and more professional features like iSCSI and such things.

With the same HDDs and settings (4HDDs RAID0, no encryption, etc.) i get ~35MB/s with the DNS-345 but ~120MB/S with the TS-459.

Does that Qnap TS-459 Pro II have the same issues as the DNS-345? i.e. my -345 decided to delete an entire share/volume; not happy. Hopefully your Qnap isn't known for doing that! :)

(Seriously, are there any known issues with it? I am looking to buy a replacement for this paperweight I've got)...
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: an3k on January 22, 2013, 05:59:48 PM
I don't have any issues with the Qnap. I also found only positive reviews by users, hardware sites and magazines. The Qnap is my main NAS and the D-Link DNS-345 only acts as an Backup target for the Qnap. Never had to Restore yet!

The TS-459 Pro II is not directly made for SOHO (Small Office and Home Office) but for SMB (Small Medium Business). But it's the less expensive 4-Bay SAN they offer with SATAIII.

They offer four versions which only slightly (more or less) differ.
Did i mention that all four devices offer two eSATA ports? ;)

Check the comparsion: http://www.qnap.com/en/compare.php?lang=en&sn=822&cp=1&pro=3453,3451,3454,10252,3418,3348,3351,9786 (http://www.qnap.com/en/compare.php?lang=en&sn=822&cp=1&pro=3453,3451,3454,10252,3418,3348,3351,9786)
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: an3k on January 22, 2013, 06:07:42 PM
Here's a live demo of their web interface: http://demo.qnap.com:8080/ (http://demo.qnap.com:8080/)
Username/Password: qnap/qnap
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: HunterGeo on January 23, 2013, 02:54:14 AM
Sounds almost too good to be true! Thanks for the tip! :)
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: an3k on January 23, 2013, 05:07:23 AM
Quote from: HunterGeo on January 23, 2013, 02:54:14 AM
Sounds almost too good to be true! Thanks for the tip! :)
True, True but it is True :D

Just got my 2nd Qnap and made a test. I used my external USB3.0 HDD and made a backup onto the DNS-345 which was running the latest firmware (the 2nd since it's release). It's CPU Usage was at 100% the whole time and it took hours (because of USB2.0 of the D-Link and) because the external HDD contains 3 iTunes libraries (291 GB). I canceled the process. Additionally it looked like the D-Link was "stuck" in the process. No activity on the external HDD ...

I did the same with the Qnap. CPU Usage was at ~50% (just because it has a better CPU with two Cores and HyperThreading) and the whole backup process took ~60 minutes and the system was still usable without any lags!

And you really want to check how often Qnap is releasing firmware updates: http://www.qnap.com/v3/de/product_x_down/product_down.php?cat=1&type=4&II=11 (http://www.qnap.com/v3/de/product_x_down/product_down.php?cat=1&type=4&II=11) ... monthly !!
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: Leathal on January 25, 2013, 11:14:58 PM
Quote from: kave on April 28, 2012, 03:18:49 AM
I have two computers in My Network which can copy to each other at 110 Mb/s when I copy large files between them.
However, when either of them copies to the d-link 345 they are down to 25-30 MB/s. I have tried both afp and smb. I have four brand new 2TB drives as raid 5.

When both are copying to the nas they are down to 20 MB/s.

Why did D-Link equip it with two interfaces when it cant use one properly?
I am really considering a ReadyNas instead.

I will try on windows 7 tomorrow to see if is the same story there.

Though RAID 5 is the best redundancy option it's not the fastest, if you want speed switch to RAID 10 if that is possible (I haven't looked myself). Also keep in mind your switches forwarding rate will also determine how fast and reliable the transfers are over your LAN. Most L2 switches aren't great for heavy transfers but an Layer3 (L3) switch is, they just cost a lot more, around $2k new for a 24 port. :)

Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: JavaLawyer on January 29, 2013, 08:16:27 AM
I just setup a new DNS-345 (A2) with two 3TB HDDs.  I'm going to spend a week testing different configurations and simulating failures before storing live data.

Here are some preliminary numbers:
Network:  PC > GB Switch > DNS-345


I have to investigate why download throughput is so low (relative to upload). For comparison, here's the throughput on my two DNS-343s:


 ???

Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: JavaLawyer on January 29, 2013, 08:18:23 AM
. . . I should also note that I am still using the factory installed firmware. Will update later to see if there's any performance improvement.
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: JavaLawyer on January 29, 2013, 11:18:48 AM
Quote from: JavaLawyer on January 29, 2013, 08:18:23 AM
. . . I should also note that I am still using the factory installed firmware. Will update later to see if there's any performance improvement.

Never mind. . . firmware is already the latest version.
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: gera_b on February 12, 2013, 12:52:34 PM
NAS (D-Link)

FW 1.01 03/15/2012
Adaptive Load Balancing
2 x 1Gbit ports to TP-LINK TL-WR1043ND
2 x 2TB Hitachi (HDS723020BLA642) in RAID 1

PC
1 x 1Gbit port
1 x WDC 2.5'' 500GB 7200rpm (WD5000BPKT)

SAMBA
NAS -> PC 85-100 MB
PC -> NAS 50-55 MB
Title: Re: Poor performance on gigabit Network
Post by: astropolak on March 11, 2013, 07:45:11 PM
Hi
DNS-345 latest firmware (Beta), 4 x Seagate ST2000DM001 in raid 5, SMB/CIFS connection, single redundant LAN connection.

DNS-345 >Dlink Gigabit Switch > Win7 64

As seen by the PC, 1GB file:

Download 90MB/s sustained
Upload 40GB/s sustained

I have been using Qnap for years now, the Download speed is higher than the TS-639 I have.
I can with reasonable confidence say that the Qnap as a company and their software on their product is a total POS, their hardware is very nice but we the Qnap users have been suffering for years with substandard firmware that Qnap has no interest in fixing.

I came here from DNS-343 and was smitten by its simplicity, true function and purpose, the DNS-345 is much faster but preseves what I've always liked in the earlier model.