Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mattcube64]

Hi!

I had all my stuff stored on a single 1.5TB drive; it's starting to get full, and so I told a friend he could have my 1.5TB drive for a little less than I paid once I got everything transferred from it to my new 2TB drive.

Well, when I copy/cut and paste (or drag and drop), between the two hard drives in my 321, it sill only goes at like 7-10mbps/s like it always does. I was hoping it would be quick, since it doesn't REALLY need to go on the network at all. Otherwise, this could take days....

Thanks!

[nguyen_a]

You might want to try FileZilla and use drag & drop to move files using the panels on the right side only. 

[gunrunnerjohn]

The way to do this would be to have fun_plug installed and use the Linux copy command.

[JoeSchmuck]

The way to do this would be to have fun_plug installed and use the Linux copy command.

GRJ,
  How much does that speed up the process?  I've never tried this.

Thanks,
Joe

[nguyen_a]

Not at all better, I am afraid.  The best speed I got was 14 MByte/s, most of the time is 6-7 MB/s.  I used Windows to drag & drop files between local drive to USB external drive (5400RPM) and the transfer rate was somewhere between 40-60 MB/s, the same files were then copied (as backup) from local drive to NAS and the rate dropped to about 6 MB/s.
Network overhead, if any, should not be a factor of 10.  I am interested to see if the disk to disk copy command would perform better since the network factor is out of the equation, only the NAS left doing its job.

[gunrunnerjohn]

Well, the direct copy is clearly as fast as it's going to get I would imagine.  Let's face it, this is pretty low-end processing, and there isn't a lot of horsepower to do things fast.

[nguyen_a]

It's pretty low end processing alright, I just did another test: transfer 5.7GB from a client (Vista) to an VSFTP server (Ubuntu Karmic), local drive to local drive, using FileZilla.  This time network performance is the main factor between those nodes.  The transfer rate was 68MByte/sec (544 mbps) on the Gigabit network, the whole file was copied in 85 seconds.  So the network overhead which reduces the performance by a factor of 2 is quite acceptable.
I now seriously think of moving my 2 drives from the NAS to the Ubuntu server and share them from there.  After all, the key point the NAS was to move large amount of files with reasonable performance, I take 68MB/s over 6MB/s anytime. 

[gunrunnerjohn]

Actually, my reason for getting the NAS was a low power device that I could leave on 24/7 for backups.  I'm perfectly happy with the 14-16 mbytes/sec transfers to the DNS-321.

[GideonOmega]

I also have to Add -- for steaming Media it works great --- haven't had any issues streaming HD off this box at all -- especially for the price

[nguyen_a]

Hey guys,
I just want to let you know that I pulled my 2 drives out of the NAS, installed them on my Ubuntu server and used mdadm to set up RAID0.  I was able to see all the files still in the drive and transfer large files to / from Mac as well as Vista boxes. 
I used both FileZilla (on Mac) and drag&drop to samba network file system (on vista) to do the test.  The transfer rates varied between 52 MB/s (416 mbps) to 72 MB/s (576 mbps), at one point in time it was over 80 MB/s.  Now THAT is the performance I would expect from a NAS.
Those hard drives are now back to their cage, the DNS-321, while I am searching for a new computer case for my server to house them.  The funny thing was that I tried to transfer the same files using the DNS-321 as last test and I got 12 MB/s this time, as if the beast was begging me "Master, don't leave me, see I am good now I give you double of the 6MB/s bandwidth you had before". Too late, baby!
The sad part is that when I bought the gigabit switches I got the expected good performance out of those devices and I did not have to work so hard to find work-around solutions.  However, when I bought this DNS-321 and saw the claim of gigabit port support, I would expect something reasonable fast, not the lame bandwidth of 6 - 12 MB/s (48 - 96 mbps) which is less than the Fast Ethernet rate. 
I truly think Dlink should put some sort of sticky note to let people know that this is something they are working on (hopefully) instead of letting the users keep asking the same questions on the slow speed over and over.  It's not cool.

[gunrunnerjohn]

Now you can sell that NAS cheaply, I offer $10.

[nguyen_a]

Ha ha ha, I will consider that offer, GuruJohn.  Hey, next time you go out to buy a Gigabit switch and come home to find out you only got 100 mbps bandwidth, let me know if you still support that company.  
I hope Dlink comes up with a new firmware soon, I wonder if they applied the Ethernet patch for the Marvell 88E1118.  
The patch I am talking about can be reviewed below:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/7432/

[gunrunnerjohn]

Well, I have to say, I looked at all the reviews of the box before I bought it, so it's doing about what I expected.  I think you have to spend a couple hundred more to get a bare box that has faster speeds.  I agree it would be very cool to have 40mbyte/sec transfers, but that ain't gonna' happen with this box.

Since I have seen the box hit 17mbytes/sec, I'm sure that it's supporting gigabit.  However, I think the overall limitations of the hardware in the box limits throughput to what it is.  It is clearly faster on a gigabit link than a 100mbit link, I've tried both.