Print

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

[Sarynn]

My home network is as follows...

• Motorola ADSL Modem
• Cisco Linksys WRVS4400N 4-Port Wireless-N Gigabit Security Router with VPN
• 2 PC, each with DWA-556  Xtreme N PCI Express Desktop Adapter
• DNS-323 connected via CAT-6 cable to router

When I transfer files to the DNS-323 while connected wireless at any PC, my transfer rate is between 2-4MB/s.  If I take either PC (each one has Gigabit Ethernet) and connect with a wire, I get a slight improvement of 4-6MB/s.

Is there any way to improve this, especially wireless?  Each PC is running Vista x64 with the latest drivers and BIOS, as well as tweaks from http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/81176-speed-up-performance-vista.html.  They're also connected 5 bars at the full 300Mps.  I'm not sure what else to do but 2-4MB/s is not ideal.

[fordem]

On gigabit ethernet, the DNS-323 is capable of perhaps 15~17MB/s writes and >20MB/s reads - but only with large files.  If you're transferring small files, throughput will drop significantly.

On wireless - it's going to be a case of what you see is what you get - even with wireless-n and it's promise of 300 mbps, you're unlikely to see much over 80 mbps real throughput and with the DNS-323 that's going to translate to maybe 6MB/s tops - less with small files.

[DBDave]

On my G wireless network, with a fast laptop, I get 2.4MB/s in either direction, and that's about maxed out for G.  When I plug into my 100mbs router (not gigabit), I can get 6-7MB/s with a slower laptop and around 10MB/s with my new laptop.

Is your Link Layer Topology Discovery (LLTD) turned on?  It can "reduce performance" per Dlink.  Though, I notice no difference from the specs above whether mine's on or off.

Are your router's lights quiet before and after the xfer?  Maybe you have a chatty network device.

Food for thought - I'm just another guy waiting on an answer to a different question, so take it with a grain of salt.

Dave

[mikemike666]

hrmm im planning to upgrade from my Linksys NAS 200 with 100mb network to this as it has gigabit port and so is my home network..

Is it worth while upgrading or this isn't that much faster?

Mike

[slyder]

Just tested my network and devices with NASTester..
500MB file size, 2 iterations (ran this test config two different times and the results are the lowest ones although never seen the NAS deliver faster than 29MB reads and 14MB writes)

Using my primary harddrive, Patriot 64GB SSD SATA2 connection.. My HD is not a performance blocker and tested to transfer at 134MB/sec writes and 152MB/sec reads qualifying that it has more that sufficient capacity, transfer rates to accommodate gigabit speeds and that the system MB can handle it.

It appears that the NAS connection needs to be tweaked somewhat and is certainly not optimized. 

Results..
PC (Vista 32B Ultimate) <-> DNS-323
Write Avg - 12MB/sec
Read Avg - 23MB/sec

PC <-> Laptop(XP Pro SP3):
Write Avg - 26MB/sec
Read Avg - 82MB/sec

The DNS-323 is my bottleneck on Reads and writes.. Gigabit connections, 9000 jumboframes (tried other sizes, this is my best performance).

Running twin Western Digital WD6400AAKS-00A7B drives 640GB in Raid 0  configuration connected to my DLink DGS-1005D gigabit switch.

The Laptop to PC connection is what I would have expected for read speeds although I did expect write speeds to be at least 50% higher.  The drives in the NAS are fast enough to handle it.

Any suggestions on tweaking the NAS?.. Dlink have a suggestion?

[fordem]

I haven't personally used the NAS200, but reviews that I read showed it as slow, even by 100mb standards - SmallNetBuilder should have figures that you could use to compare the performance.

The last page of this review shows the Dlink DNS-323 as having roughly double the read/write speeds of the NAS200, and is the reason I didn't buy a NAS200

[fordem]

Slyder

I don't think there's much you can do to optimize the throughput with the DNS-323 - it is limited by the processing power and memory available in the device.

This is a low cost device, and that is evident in it's performance - having said that, it appears to be, based on SmallNetBuilder reviews, a better performer than many products in the same price bracket.

From my point of view, trying to wring the last megabyte/second out of it is pointless - you can test all you want, and by the way, large file sizes will give you higher numbers - but in a real world situation, where you have no control over file sizes, the throughput is likely to be disappointingly low.

I've seen numbers in to the low 30's in my tests, but in my real world usage with the same hardware, throughput averages at <1MB/sec.  It does what I want (backup my server) and I'm happy with it.

[Sarynn]

Thanks for the replies so far.  I have Jumbo Frames at 9000 and LLTD turned off.  Actually every PC has network discovery turned off too (supposed to help with network performance).  I guess "it is what it is" and will deal with it.  One last thing regarding my NAS, I have two 1.5TB Seagate 32MB cache drives in a RAID 1 configuration.

[slyder]

I don't think there's much you can do to optimize the throughput with the DNS-323 - it is limited by the processing power and memory available in the device.
...............
 It does what I want (backup my server) and I'm happy with it.

I figured as much.. maybe ramp up the memory if possible.. will have to investigate.. The speed doesn't affect my desired application anyways.. felt I would test it given the inquiry on this thread... Just use it for serving media to my pair of DSM'750's anyway. so does what it needs to do quite well with only a single exception that drives me crazy...

I does not serve MKV filetypes!.. IF and when this ever gets resolved.. I will be one very happy dlink fan.  Otherwise no real complaints or concerns other than this.

Thanks for the feedback

[fordem]

The memory is soldered onto the board - two 32MB surface mount modules, so unless you have access to the necessary board rework facilities, you can forget that idea.  I've seen reports in another forum where two people claim to have done it (upgrading to 128MB, using two 64MB modules), however I understand it also requires custom firmware for it to be recognized.