D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => D-Link Storage => DNS-323 => Topic started by: cjmedina on December 22, 2009, 04:43:10 PM
-
Why
-
Please post your current transfer speed
-
Not a real informative post. ??? What are the transfer speeds and how are you measuring them. What is the environment, network speed, jumbo frames, etc.?
-
Running window 7
DNS-323 ver 1.07
transfer from volume 1 to volume 2
<ftp://cj136.gotdns.com/Websites/Test/Transfer%20Speed.PNG>
<ftp://cj136.gotdns.com/Websites/Test/Info.PNG>
-
Not a real informative post. ??? What are the transfer speeds and how are you measuring them. What is the environment, network speed, jumbo frames, etc.?
-
Not a real informative post. ??? What are the transfer speeds and how are you measuring them. What is the environment, network speed, jumbo frames, etc.?
Running window 7
DNS-323 ver 1.07
transfer from volume 1 to volume 2
<ftp://cj136.gotdns.com/Websites/Test/Transfer%20Speed.PNG>
<ftp://cj136.gotdns.com/Websites/Test/Info.PNG>
-
It is my understanding that copying/moving files from Vol 1 to Vol 2 is not a direct copy. In effect you are copying files from volume 1 on DNS-323 --> network --> your PC --> network --> vol 2 DNS-323. Because of this your transfer speeds are influenced by the following factors:
1. File size
2. Network setup (gigabit vs. 10/100, number of devices on network, speed of switch and/or router, quality of network cables, etc.)
3. Any other traffic on your network.
So, the speed you are getting may not be unreasonable depending on the above.
-
Correct, if Windows is involved in the transfer, you are transferring the files over the network twice, coming and going. If this is a 100mbit network, you can't expect more than about 4mbyte/sec data rates. In addition, smaller files will slow down tranfers, even if the network isn't the bottleneck.
We still don't know the network speed and if gigabit, are jumbo frames in use and what size are they.
-
What I'm trying to do is transfer about 40 gigs to volume 2 from volume 1 because I'm going to upgrade to 1.5 TB drives
1 Gigabit transfer router/switch/adapter
CJ
-
Why not put one disk into a PC, format it there, and transfer the stuff to the PC connected disk. It'll be a lot faster.
-
Also, suggest you read this to understand a bit a more about how networks work and speeds:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gigabit-ethernet-bandwidth,2321.html
I found the info is excellent....well explained and easy to understand.
Cheers
-
My Transfer speed from net drive to N speed wireless laptop is 3.7-4 meg/s for a 846meg file....Is this normal?
my router and switch is gig speed...
-
It's not abnormal. WiFi is MUCH slower than wired connections, even though the bit rate suggests it should be faster.
-
My Transfer speed from net drive to N speed wireless laptop is 3.7-4 meg/s for a 846meg file....Is this normal?
my router and switch is gig speed...
I'd say it's normal - it's certainly in line with what I've seen on wireless-n.
-
I'd say it's normal - it's certainly in line with what I've seen on wireless-n.
I drew the same conclusion year ago. Not after I bought my Windows Home Server Box. My WHS and NAS are both attached to router, PC wireless N to network.
Transfer speed of WHS <-> PC is easily double the speed of NAS <-> PC, at least double for sure.
-
I drew the same conclusion year ago. Not after I bought my Windows Home Server Box. My WHS and NAS are both attached to router, PC wireless N to network.
Transfer speed of WHS <-> PC is easily double the speed of NAS <-> PC, at least double for sure.
The big reason for this is that the WHS devices typically have a 1.6GHz processor and > 1GByte of mainboard memory. As such, they can do two things much better, disk caching, higher transfer due to more processor speed. So, I'm not supprised that it is doing better than the NAS as it has 64MBytes of mainboard memory and <= 500MHz processor.
TheWitness
-
The big reason for this is that the WHS devices typically have a 1.6GHz processor and > 1GByte of mainboard memory. As such, they can do two things much better, disk caching, higher transfer due to more processor speed. So, I'm not supprised that it is doing better than the NAS as it has 64MBytes of mainboard memory and <= 500MHz processor.
TheWitness
Personally, I don't understand how the computer really works while copying files. I mean how much computing power is required to finish this task.
But, do appreciate your input.
-
Personally, I don't understand how the computer really works while copying files. I mean how much computing power is required to finish this task.
But, do appreciate your input.
I'll try to explain. There is a program running called smbd (Samba Daemon). While the box is running, the network interface card generates an interrupt every time there is data at arriving at the card that is either unicast (directed at the host), or broadcast (intended for everybody). A certain percentage of that traffic will be intended for the Samba Daemon. When this happens, the Samba Daemon will receive a signal, through what is called a socket select that tells it that it has something to do. It will then take that action. Depending on the "quality" of the hardware, and when I mean that, how much of the work is offloaded to subsystems, the CPU can be very busy handling interrupts, passing things off to various subsystems, like Samba, and moving data back and forth to/from the hard disks and various interfaces.
The more traffic, the harder it works. There are only so many things that can be done per second in a CPU or core and the more traffic means less CPU cycles for other things. There is a tool called "top", that if you crack your box, will allow you to see just how much of the CPU is being used by the various smbd processes. Generally speaking, when Disk I/O is not a problem (the CPU is not waiting on the disk), the smbd (Samba) process can consume virtually all of the CPU power of the device from just a single file transfer. The CPU is that small. Something from the 90's IMHO.
Hope that helps, at least a little.
TheWitness
-
Here's my DNS-323 transferring a single file from the NAS to my computer, gigabit with 4k jumbo frames. Note it's taking are of any surplus processor time. :D
(http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww264/gunrunnerjohn/Misc%20Graphics/top.jpg)
-
Thank you, TheWitness & gunrunnerjohn. That explains a lot.
I have to be fair, for the price, it does the job. When I say job, I mean backup, maybe streaming audio, but not video.
In Wireless connection, my Media Player refuse to play any video files from DNS-323 most of the time. I may get luck one time or two, but that's about it. I am sure wired connection will change the situation, but most of us are not using wired connection anymore.
Anyway, like I said, I just keep backups on it now.
Happy New Year, guys!
-
I am sure wired connection will change the situation, but most of us are not using wired connection anymore.
Do you keep stats on what other people are using?
I'm inclined to say that most of us, at least those who are serious are still using wired connections - having learned the hard way about the quirks & idiosyncracies of wireless.
Personally I've been using wireless for over a decade - 802.11, 802.11b, 802.11g & 802.11n - and it works fine for browsing - but if you want to move bulk data - it sucks big time.
-
I went to considerable trouble to wire all of the fixed equipment in my network, only the laptops and my grandson's computer are wireless. The Wii console is wireless as well, but that link gets very little action.
-
I noticed a lot of memory pigs using top. upnp and the mtd itunes process.
I went into the web admin via 192.168.1.XYZ and went into ADVANCED and under the UPNP and ITUNES sections disabled both.
Dramatic difference noted via top of memory usage and processor usage. It has sped up transfers also.
-
Alright guys. I am kind of new to this as well and I too am having some slow transfer speeds. I have a gigabit network running on both the NAS and my computer. Previously, I was getting great transfer speed transferring large files in 10 minutes or let. Now however, when I attempt to transfer a 5gb file from the NAS to my computer, it only transfers at around 300kb with an estimated finish time of around 8 hours. I have Jumbo Frame Settings enabled at 9000. Does anyone have any insight as to what the problem could be? Are there any settings I could be missing? My OS is Windows 7 and my network is running off a TrendNET TEW-639GR router.
Whats weird is that my wife's computer is only 10/100 and it can transfer that 5gb file from the NAS to her computer in 15 minutes or less.
-
Obviously - if you can transfer the same 5GB file to your wife's computer in a shorter time than you can yours, the problem is unlikely to be the NAS or the network, so what are we left with ?
Your computer.
Try defragmenting your disk and see what happens.
-
Well I defrag my hard drives on a regular basis. I also hooked up my laptop which is running 10/100/1000, and it too was very slow at transferring the file.
-
We need to be very specific here ...
We're talking about one specific 5GB file - not just any 5GB file - that transfers to your wife's computer in under 15 minutes - and the very same file takes considerably longer to transfer to either of yours - if this is not so, then we will need to look elsewhere (if it's a different file, then you need to consider disk fragmentation on the disks in the NAS as a possibility).
The fact that you can transfer the file at a reasonable speed to your wife's computer immediately eliminates the NAS and the network path between it and your wife's computer as suspects - you need to look at the your two computers and the network path between them (where it differs from the network path to your wife's computer) and the NAS.
How about providing some details on the network itself?
-
How is "other traffic" on your network during the transfer? Do you have torrents running while you are doing file transfers or any other app that may be sucking up bandwidth?
-
I've got no other applications taking up bandwidth. As far as my network goes, see the following:http://i858.photobucket.com/albums/ab149/gsmyer/NetworkLayout.gif (http://i858.photobucket.com/albums/ab149/gsmyer/NetworkLayout.gif)
-
Nice Visio :)
If I read the posts correctly; the current issue is that large file transfer from your wife's (aka management) system is considerably quicker than that from the two workstations in the other room.
Assuming the systems are somewhat similar (ex: HDD RPM, NIC Speed, etc.), it may be worth running a cable tester on the lines (& wall jacks) to ensure that there isn't a cable related - miswire, cross pair, bad jack, interference, etc.
HTH,
-
Well I tested all connections using my Fluke cable tester after I ran the wiring and didn't find any problems. I suppose I can check it again. But then again, if I did in fact have a miswire or faulty jack, I wouldn't be receiving network connectivity to those machines, correct?
-
Another suggestion perhaps eliminate one of your computers in the other room and see if the speed improves. Then connect and eliminate your laptop and see what happens. Could be related to one or other of your PCs or NIC inside the PC?
I actually have found out that the 2 integrated LAN ports on my motherboard are different. Although they are both gigabit one is PCI while the other is PCIE. Technically the PCI port is limited in speed because of the bus although I have never confirmed this, this is what ASUS says. Just wondering if there is a characteristic of one of your PCs and NIC that is different?
-
That's a good point about the two NICs. I will give that a try and see what happens. Also is there a defrag utility for the NAS drives?
-
No defrag for the NAS, it's been talked about here several times.
-
Well I tested all connections using my Fluke cable tester after I ran the wiring and didn't find any problems. I suppose I can check it again. But then again, if I did in fact have a miswire or faulty jack, I wouldn't be receiving network connectivity to those machines, correct?
Just to clarify - you could have miswired and faulty jacks and still have connectivity - the tcp/ip protocol suites are surprisingly tolerant and will more often that not handle network errors transparently (as they are designed to do), and frequently these errors can only be observed as you have done, as a drop in throughput rather than an outright failure.
A few more questions come to mind ...
What Fluke tester were you using and what does it check for?
Are we talking cable certification or cable testing?
What type of cable did you run for your gigabit links?
Last, but by no means least - are you sure that TrendNet router supports jumbo frame? I had a quick look at the data sheet and there is no mention of jumbo frame.
-
It doesn't mention jumbo frames in the user manual specifications either.
-
I actually have found out that the 2 integrated LAN ports on my motherboard are different. Although they are both gigabit one is PCI while the other is PCIE. Technically the PCI port is limited in speed because of the bus although I have never confirmed this, this is what ASUS says. Just wondering if there is a characteristic of one of your PCs and NIC that is different?
I've run into that issue with my old Asus P2BDS-850MHz, the D-Link Gigabit PCI adapters I had were flooding the bus and had to throttle them down to 100 Mbps.
Last, but by no means least - are you sure that TrendNet router supports jumbo frame? I had a quick look at the data sheet and there is no mention of jumbo frame.
It doesn't mention jumbo frames in the user manual specifications either.
AFAIK, Jumbo Frames must be supported end-to-end in order to benefit from it ... the documentation does seem to imply that the TrendNet doesn't support it. It's additionally possible that the implementation (if it does support JF) is not 100% compatible - i.e. poorly implemented.
-
Well, after some troubleshooting, I believe the router is at fault. Question is why. What I did was to disconnected the NAS from the router and hooked it into the wall jack that my primary computer is connected to. The search utility showed the DNS as having an IP address of 192.168.1.37. The old IP address when it was connected to my router was 192.168.10.101. So I changed my computer to a static IP of 192.168.1.2. I then was able to connect to the NAS and transfer the same 5gb in 6 minutes at 14.2mb per second. So that basically proves that the cabling between the equipment is not faulty. When I connected all cables back through the router, the transfer speed dropped back down to 300kb per second.
What I don't understand is that I am 100% positive that worked previously a few months ago. The only thing that has changed on my router is that a few months back, I lost all internet connectivity and the only was to get it to work again was to enable the MAC Address Cloning, which it didn't need previously.
-
Good job in isolating the fault. Perhaps reflash the router with the same router firmware release. Maybe somehow it got corrupted.
-
I'd not only update to the latest firmware, but also reset the router to factory defaults and reconfigure. I've found this fixes a lot of oddball behavior with routers.
-
Well the issue has been resolved. The first thing I had to do was to remove my wife's computer from the router. I then restarted both the cable modem and the router. Once all that was back up, I logged into the router and cloned the MAC address of my primary computer. Once that was done, I was then successfully able to access the internet. I then plugged the NAS into the router and attempted the transfer the 5gb file. I was then able to transfer the file at a little over 20mb per second!
AKFubar, was also somewhat on the right track about something on the network taking up bandwidth. I noticed that once my wife's computer was plugged into the router, the file transfer speed would drop back down to around 300kb. Once removed from the router, transfer speed was back up to normal levels. I looked at the NIC on my wifes computer and it was flashing constantly. My guess is that the NIC in that computer is at the end of its life and is constantly broadcasting over the network. Good thing is that this gives me an excuse to purchase a 10/100/1000 NIC for that computer.
Thanks guys for all your help.
-
Please also remember that in a gigabit network, ALL interfacing components/cables must be gigabit certified to utilize speed and jumbo frames.
Ref: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gigabit-ethernet-bandwidth,2321.html
Cheers
-
Well, in truth, unless you have really long cable runs, even CAT5 cable will handle gigabit with no issues. Obviously, it's better to have at least CAT5e for gigabit... Of course, all the other parts obviously have to support both gigabit (and jumbo frames if you're going to use them) to actually sustain gigabit speeds.