Print

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

[kave]

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.

[kave]

 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.

[HunterGeo]

Hi kave,

I am experiencing even slower transfer speeds - around 100KB in twelve hours. Count yourself lucky!
Sorry, I can't help you out, but this seems to be a major problem with the -345...

[pippomostarda]

I have slow performances too...

[Leathal]

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.
 

[pippomostarda]

Ok, but 345 performance are significantly slower than my single disk wd my book live...

[an3k]

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.

[HunterGeo]

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)...

[an3k]

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.

• The TS-419P II has the slowest CPU (Marvel 2 GHz), half of the RAM (512MB), less Flash storage (16MB), no SATAIII support, no upgradable RAM and is missing some other features but offers USB3.0.
• The TS-459 Pro+ has a new Intel Atom 1.8 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 512MB Flash (DOM), still no SATAIII or upgradable RAM and no USB3.0
• The TS-459 Pro II has the same CPU, RAM, Flash as the Pro+ but offers SATAIII, upgradable RAM (means you are allowed to open the chassis without losing warranty) and USB3.0
• The TS-469 Pro has the same CPU but at 2.13 GHz, RAM, Flash as the Pro II including SATAIII, upgradable RAM, USB3.0 and it offers an HDMI output so you can directly connect your HDTV to it to access movies and stuff.

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

[an3k]

Here's a live demo of their web interface: http://demo.qnap.com:8080/
Username/Password: qnap/qnap

[HunterGeo]

Sounds almost too good to be true! Thanks for the tip!

[an3k]

Sounds almost too good to be true! Thanks for the tip!

True, True but it is True

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 ... monthly !!

[Leathal]

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.

[JavaLawyer]

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

• Upload (PC > DNS-345):  ~53 MB/s
• Download (DNS-345 > PC): 30-36 MB/s

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

• Upload (PC > DNS-343):  9-10 MB/s
• Download (DNS-343 > PC): 32-33 MB/s

 

[JavaLawyer]

. . . I should also note that I am still using the factory installed firmware. Will update later to see if there's any performance improvement.