Print

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

[Steve Pitts]

I am getting over 50MB/s to another server on the same network easily

Two questions to ask yourself. How much did that other server cost in comparison to the DNS323?? What is the power footprint of that other server compared to the DNS323??

FWIW I doubt (based on my own testing and what I've read here and elsewhere about the device) that you will do any better than you are now, whatever else you change in your infrastructure. After a quick perusal I can't find anything in the specifications on the web site, or the data sheet, but the manual contains this statement:

"High Performance Gigabit Ethernet Connectivity (Up to 23/15MBps or 184/120Mbps Read/Write)"

which strikes me as a fair reflection. I regularly see write speeds of 15MB/s (and indeed a little better than that, up to about 17.5) and the best read speed I've managed is 23.7MB/s (although I've not done anything like as much read testing - most of my usage of the NAS is as a backup of backups, hence I tend to be writing large files). Depending on the number of files you are handling (in relation to the total amount of data) these numbers can show a downward trend pretty quickly, especially when writing.

[mihies]

Hi Steve,

Uf, who reads manuals. Now, if this is true there are some consequences:
- it is a misleading advertisement - nowhere on specs this limitation is listed
- it is a ****py port or hw (who knows where does it origin)
- it is a waste of time
- hey, it is a D-Link!

Hey, it is just a throughput, nothing special: get data from lan and send it to disk and vice versa. Why would it slow down is beyond me.

PS. That server is a cheap homebuilt one with old hw, motherboard lan and a cheap disk

[Steve Pitts]

who reads manuals

Well, me obviously

it is a misleading advertisement - nowhere on specs this limitation is listed

So not misleading at all, merely incomplete. The fact that nothing much is made of the speed of the unit really ought to tell you that this isn't being sold as a top-end unit (as ought the price)

it is a waste of time

I would disagree with that sentiment. I purchased the unit for less than sixty quid, working to a budget, and it gives me exactly what I was expecting for the price - a cheap NAS. Anything with better performance was going to cost me at least £150 more, so I certainly don't view the unit as a waste of anything. Your mileage obviously varies

Why would it slow down is beyond me

Because the processor in the DNS323 simply isn't capable of handling the data any faster (with the supplied firmware, whether it would be possible to improve things with some hand-crafted assembler code is a different matter)

[mihies]

OK, some statements were rhetorical. But seriously, a hw incapable of handling 50MB/s transfer. Watch, not data manipulation, just mere throughput? Seriously?

If the controller on the disk can do it and a $10 network card can do it you would seriously think that a modern CPU can't handle it? Obviously there is a some sort of bottleneck in there and this is hugely disappointing even for a cheap device like DNS-323 is. But that's subjective.

As per "So not misleading at all, merely incomplete" I tend to disagree. What would you think if you'd buy a 10TB hard disk with 1GB/s speed capability (advertised) only to find out that it really can store only 1GB of data at 1Kb/s rate? Incomplete? Misleading? Fraud? Pick one.

[fordem]

As per "So not misleading at all, merely incomplete" I tend to disagree. What would you think if you'd buy a 10TB hard disk with 1GB/s speed capability (advertised) only to find out that it really can store only 1GB of data at 1Kb/s rate? Incomplete? Misleading? Fraud? Pick one.

Does it not say on the outside of the box "upto 23MB/sec" (or something similar - I forget the exact number, it's been four years since I've seen the box mine came in - but the throughput numbers ARE on the box) - isn't the real problem that you failed to research the suitability of the device to meet your needs?

For the sake of discussion ...

I have behind me a pair of almost identical IBM xSeries small business servers - they are 2006 technology - 3GB RAM, 3GHz Pentium IV, integrated Intel PRO/1000 NIC - they both have 250GB SATA disks, one has 2x250GB  in a RAID1 configuration on the integrated ServeRAID 7e controller, the other has 3x250GB in a RAID5 on a ServeRAID 7t controller.

The first system is capable of almost 800mb/s continuous transfers, the second will start out at 800mb/sec and in a matter of seconds drop to around 80mb/sec - do you feel that there is something, incomplete, fradulent or misleading about this?

[mihies]

Does it not say on the outside of the box "upto 23MB/sec" (or something similar - I forget the exact number, it's been four years since I've seen the box mine came in - but the throughput numbers ARE on the box) - isn't the real problem that you failed to research the suitability of the device to meet your needs?

I forgot what box looks like as you did. The one problem with the box is that you actually can't see one when buying over internet, can you - and be assured no merchant is listing this limitation? Anyway when I usually buy something over internet I look at specifications on the manufacturer web site. Why is this limitation missing there is beyond me. Granted I could research more (reviews, etc.) but honestly, didn't even think about it could so severely limit transfer speed.

For the sake of discussion ...

I have behind me a pair of almost identical IBM xSeries small business servers - they are 2006 technology - 3GB RAM, 3GHz Pentium IV, integrated Intel PRO/1000 NIC - they both have 250GB SATA disks, one has 2x250GB  in a RAID1 configuration on the integrated ServeRAID 7e controller, the other has 3x250GB in a RAID5 on a ServeRAID 7t controller.

The first system is capable of almost 800mb/s continuous transfers, the second will start out at 800mb/sec and in a matter of seconds drop to around 80mb/sec - do you feel that there is something, incomplete, fradulent or misleading about this?

No, not at all. RAID 5 is slow and 80MB/s sustained speed is in line with what one would expect (read should be faster). These are physical limitations of RAID 5 and works as expected. Now, if the first one would perform like the second one it would be odd.

The thing is that you are talking server configuration where you can achieve full speed (first one) and you can slow it down with your "mistakes".

[TJ]

Might as well jump in here:

As per "So not misleading at all, merely incomplete" I tend to disagree. What would you think if you'd buy a 10TB hard disk with 1GB/s speed capability (advertised) only to find out that it really can store only 1GB of data at 1Kb/s rate? Incomplete? Misleading? Fraud? Pick one.

Has anyone on the planet ever gotten the advertised 3 gb/s or 6gb/s of a SATA drive? Actually ever use a 1TB HDD for that matter? Reserve space for sector reallocation/system use/over head aside, nobody gets a TB. Ever see an ad for McDonald's for that matter?

So you didn't know the limits of the box before you bought it? Caveat emptor. The specs are on the data sheet ON the dlink website:

http://www.dlink.ca/products/?pid=509

ftp://ftp10.dlink.com/pdfs/products/DNS-323/DNS-323_ds_ca.pdf

Google "dns-323 performance" or "dns-323 transfer speed" there are tons of reviews!
When your box arrives and you see the specs (which are written on the box) you don't open the damned thing! You return it. End of story.

[fordem]

Might as well jump in here:

Has anyone on the planet ever gotten the advertised 3 gb/s or 6gb/s of a SATA drive? Actually ever use a 1TB HDD for that matter? Reserve space for sector reallocation/system use/over head aside, nobody gets a TB. Ever see an ad for McDonald's for that matter?

So you didn't know the limits of the box before you bought it? Caveat emptor. The specs are on the data sheet ON the dlink website:

http://www.dlink.ca/products/?pid=509

ftp://ftp10.dlink.com/pdfs/products/DNS-323/DNS-323_ds_ca.pdf

Google "dns-323 performance" or "dns-323 transfer speed" there are tons of reviews!
When your box arrives and you see the specs (which are written on the box) you don't open the damned thing! You return it. End of story.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mihies]

Has anyone on the planet ever gotten the advertised 3 gb/s or 6gb/s of a SATA drive?

Yes, it is possible for reading/writing out/to the onboard cache or using modern SSDs. Is it possible to achieve 1Gb/s out of DNS-323?
But again these aren't good comparisons. Disks have known limitations, don't they?

Actually ever use a 1TB HDD for that matter? Reserve space for sector reallocation/system use/over head aside, nobody gets a TB. Ever see an ad for McDonald's for that matter?

Again, these are well known limits.

So you didn't know the limits of the box before you bought it? Caveat emptor. The specs are on the data sheet ON the dlink website:

http://www.dlink.ca/products/?pid=509

ftp://ftp10.dlink.com/pdfs/products/DNS-323/DNS-323_ds_ca.pdf

Yeah, well, pardon me for not reading every variant of specifications available. But that's not about me, it is about how D-Link present specs.

Google "dns-323 performance" or "dns-323 transfer speed" there are tons of reviews!
When your box arrives and you see the specs (which are written on the box) you don't open the damned thing! You return it. End of story.

Again, this isn't about being carefully (in the sense of scouting the web before) when buying products, but rather about misleading specifications.

And here I am asking again you wise men protectors of D-Link. Why is the speed that low? I have yet to see an explanation. And don't start again with "you have to google before buying".

[fordem]

Hold a second - you're going to excuse the inability of a disk drive because of well know limits but have a problem with the available network bandwidth on the DNS-323's gigabit port - do I have it right?

Would you be happier if I said I have pushed the ethernet port on a DNS-323 to 400mbps or 50MB/sec - and yes I am 100% serious about that - and let's keep this in perspective - I have other gigabit NICs (realtek chipsets) that cannot achieve anything beyond 270 mbps.

This is not about how D-Link presents specifications or misleading specifications, this is about incorrect expectations - regardless of what you expect the ethernet port meets IEEE standards for 802.3ab.

[Steve Pitts]

this isn't about being carefully (in the sense of scouting the web before) when buying products, but rather about misleading specifications

I'm really not sure what you are expecting from this supposedly misleading information. Having taken a look at the specs for similar devices from Seagate, Netgear and Buffalo I don't see any of their specifications trumpeting their transfer speeds either.  Even QNAP or Thecus don't list transfer speeds in all of their spec sheets. Some of the more expensive units feature phrases like 'up to 60MB/s' in their feature descriptions but the entry level and low-end devices are universally silent on the subject.

Why is the speed that low? I have yet to see an explanation

Que?? What was this then??

Because the processor in the DNS323 simply isn't capable of handling the data any faster (with the supplied firmware, whether it would be possible to improve things with some hand-crafted assembler code is a different matter)

[mihies]

Steve, procesor not being able to transfer speeds of above 24MB/s. Are you really serious? Besides transfer isn't done by CPU anymore or the unit has a Z80.

Besides, you are saying CPU, fordem is saying network interface. Clear? Sure.

[fordem]

Besides, you are saying CPU, fordem is saying network interface. Clear? Sure.

I said what???

[mihies]

I said what???

"Would you be happier if I said I have pushed the ethernet port on a DNS-323 to 400mbps or 50MB/sec - and yes I am 100% serious about that"

This is not about how D-Link presents specifications or misleading specifications, this is about incorrect expectations - regardless of what you expect the ethernet port meets IEEE standards for 802.3ab.

Perhaps I've misunderstood you that onboard network port is the bottleneck?

[fordem]

You're griping about <20MB/sec throughput, I make a statement about pushing 50MB/sec through the NIC and you somehow infer that I'm saying the NIC is the bottleneck?

Doesn't that sound backward to you?