Print

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

[gunrunnerjohn]

Well, I've never seen more than 14-15mbytes/sec from this unit, I can't imagine how you can get 30mbyte/sec under any configuration!

[stoopid]

Well, I've never seen more than 14-15mbytes/sec from this unit, I can't imagine how you can get 30mbyte/sec under any configuration!

I suspect you're correct.  Point is - my upgrade path pretty much demonstrates the issue is with the NAS.  Any explanation otherwise is a lie.

Do they need to fix it?  Not sure.  The expectation I had can't be unique to potential buyers.  So unless they want to keep tarnishing their brand name they either need to get busy fixing the problem (not likely) or offer upgrade promotion pricing to existing DNS-321 owners in order to get a product whose network performance comes remotely close to what people actually want from their NAS.  This is like buying a 5,000 pound Cadillac to find out it has a 1.6L 4 cylinder under the hood.  Technically it will move the wheels, but you should expect to get out and push on the hills.

[palswim]

It definitely seems internal, since I had two drives in my NAS (non-RAID) and attempted to copy everything from one drive to the other (500 GB).  This took over 40 hours!  That's less than 4 MB/s for transfer speed.  It seemed like a difficult task for my device, since it had to both read and write without using the RAID controller, but wow, that was slow!

[biggus]

There must be a difference in the firmware between the 321 and the 323 model.  I have the 321 at home and noticed the poor read/write speeds while the 323 at work is very fast.  I didn't need the USB ports at home, so I saved a few bucks and got the 321.  Maybe I shouldn't have.  I hope they fix the firmware.

[gunrunnerjohn]

The DNS-321 and DNS-323 have different processors, so the DNS-323 will be a bit faster, about 20% if my tests can be believed.

[nguyen_a]

Before blaming the DNS, one can verify if the Gigabit network is indeed supporting that bandwidth.  Below is the link to download iperf to a windows box, you can run it to find out what bandwidth your switch and router gives you.

download link:
http://www.noc.ucf.edu/Tools/Iperf/

command from windows 1 box:

iperf -c <ip1> -u -b400M -w2m -i1 -t60

e.g. ipeft -c 192.168.1.101 -u -b400M -w2m -i1 -t60
where:
<ip1> is the ip address of another windowx/linux box

Wait for a minute for it to transfer data and report result, then issue another command

iperf -c <ip2> -u -b400M -w2m -i1 -t60
where:
<ip2> is the ip address of the NAS box

Another way to find out about the true transfer rate is via Filezilla, which fluctuates between 6 MB/s to 20 MB/s, average about 10 MB/s.  Do this exercise between 2 boxes and then repeat with DNS as server (enabling FTP server option would help here).

Cheers

[palswim]

For me, since the slow read speed occurred within the NAS system as a disk-to-disk copy, I'm going to go ahead and blame the DNS.

[nguyen_a]

Well, I think the DNS does have some contribution to the slow speed as well, but not all of it.  I also noticed that when I forced the speed to 1000 Mbit/sec instead of Auto and used 9K Jumbo frames the DNS performed better than 10 MB/s most of the time.  Since I switched back to Auto (& left the 9K frames), the performance went back down to about 6MB/s.  So playing with the configuration could help.

[stoopid]

10MBps is pretty crappy gigabit throughput.  The fact this is acceptible for this device speaks volumes.

I wanted to swap out my router and switch setup anyway, so I did a couple days ago.  No change (at least things didn't get worse  lol).  I'm resigned to live with the product but it's tarnished my belief in cheap solutions and next time I'll pass on any low-end dlink products and save a few pennies for something better with better overall reviews.

[gunrunnerjohn]

You should be able to do better than 10mbytes/sec with this box, but I wouldn't expect miracles.   Figure in around 15mbytes/sec...

[Viking65]

Being a newbie at network speeds, my new 321 is taking about 14 minutes to copy a 1GB movie file from my Vista 64 machine to the 321.  What's the math for figuring out the Mbps - and is it bits or bytes? Both are hardwired through a dlink 8 port gigabit switch and both show a gigabit connection at the switch.  I have configured the 321 for 1000 Mbps, 5000 Jumbo frame size.

14 minutes to copy a 1GB file seems absurd to me.  1GB network speed would seem to imply that this task should take just a few seconds on a network with nothing else running??

Like I said, a newbie at this - so please help me align my expectations.

Thanks

[Viking65]

More info - found the program LAN Speed Test and ran it on the 321.  Write was recorded at 26 Mbps, read at 9 Mbps.  However, it took 30.5 seconds to write a 100MB file and 88 seconds to read, so the math still doesn't seem to add up.  And nothing is anywhere near the Gigabit performance advertised.

Disappointed to say the least.

[gunrunnerjohn]

For typical speeds of the DNS-321 on a gigabit network with jumbo frames, I'd expect that copy to take something over a minute, surely less than two.  Figure on around 15 mbytes/sec on a good day.

1024 mbytes / 15 mbytes = 68.27 seconds.

Now, things never seem to go quite as fast as you expect, hence my hedging on the speed.

Your speed is barely over 1 mbyte/sec, clearly way slower than it should be, even on a 100mbit network.  Those are the speeds I'd expect on a 10mbit link.

[jjd99d]

14.5mb/s is about all your going to get with the dns-321 or dns-323. I got a great rebate on the 321 but I had no ideal the speed was so slow. My thumb drive is a tad bit faster then this. I only get 13.5mb/s 
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_nas/Itemid,190

[The_Tango]

Excuse my ignorance - Where do you set the jumbo setting in the 321