Print

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

[TheWitness]

I drew the same conclusion year ago. Not after I bought my Windows Home Server Box. My WHS and NAS are both attached to router, PC wireless N to network.

Transfer speed of WHS <-> PC is easily double the speed of NAS <-> PC, at least double for sure.

The big reason for this is that the WHS devices typically have a 1.6GHz processor and > 1GByte of mainboard memory.  As such, they can do two things much better, disk caching, higher transfer due to more processor speed.  So, I'm not supprised that it is doing better than the NAS as it has 64MBytes of mainboard memory and <= 500MHz processor.

TheWitness

[JerryatDLink]

The big reason for this is that the WHS devices typically have a 1.6GHz processor and > 1GByte of mainboard memory.  As such, they can do two things much better, disk caching, higher transfer due to more processor speed.  So, I'm not supprised that it is doing better than the NAS as it has 64MBytes of mainboard memory and <= 500MHz processor.

TheWitness

Personally, I don't understand how the computer really works while copying files. I mean how much computing power is required to finish this task.

But, do appreciate your input.

[TheWitness]

Personally, I don't understand how the computer really works while copying files. I mean how much computing power is required to finish this task.

But, do appreciate your input.

I'll try to explain.  There is a program running called smbd (Samba Daemon).  While the box is running, the network interface card generates an interrupt every time there is data at arriving at the card that is either unicast (directed at the host), or broadcast (intended for everybody).  A certain percentage of that traffic will be intended for the Samba Daemon.  When this happens, the Samba Daemon will receive a signal, through what is called a socket select that tells it that it has something to do.  It will then take that action.  Depending on the "quality" of the hardware, and when I mean that, how much of the work is offloaded to subsystems, the CPU can be very busy handling interrupts, passing things off to various subsystems, like Samba, and moving data back and forth to/from the hard disks and various interfaces.

The more traffic, the harder it works.  There are only so many things that can be done per second in a CPU or core and the more traffic means less CPU cycles for other things.  There is a tool called "top", that if you crack your box, will allow you to see just how much of the CPU is being used by the various smbd processes.  Generally speaking, when Disk I/O is not a problem (the CPU is not waiting on the disk), the smbd (Samba) process can consume virtually all of the CPU power of the device from just a single file transfer.  The CPU is that small.  Something from the 90's IMHO.

Hope that helps, at least a little.

TheWitness

[gunrunnerjohn]

Here's my DNS-323 transferring a single file from the NAS to my computer, gigabit with 4k jumbo frames.  Note it's taking are of any surplus processor time.

[JerryatDLink]

Thank you, TheWitness & gunrunnerjohn. That explains a lot.

I have to be fair, for the price, it does the job. When I say job, I mean backup, maybe streaming audio, but not video.

In Wireless connection, my Media Player refuse to play any video files from DNS-323 most of the time. I may get luck one time or two, but that's about it. I am sure wired connection will change the situation, but most of us are not using wired connection anymore.

Anyway, like I said, I just keep backups on it now.

Happy New Year, guys!

[fordem]

I am sure wired connection will change the situation, but most of us are not using wired connection anymore.

Do you keep stats on what other people are using?

I'm inclined to say that most of us, at least those who are serious are still using wired connections - having learned the hard way about the quirks & idiosyncracies of wireless.

Personally I've been using wireless for over a decade - 802.11, 802.11b, 802.11g & 802.11n - and it works fine for browsing - but if you want to move bulk data - it sucks big time.

[gunrunnerjohn]

I went to considerable trouble to wire all of the fixed equipment in my network, only the laptops and my grandson's computer are wireless.  The Wii console is wireless as well, but that link gets very little action.

[paxmark1]

I noticed a lot of memory pigs using top.  upnp and the mtd itunes process. 
I went into the web admin via 192.168.1.XYZ and went into ADVANCED and under the UPNP and ITUNES sections disabled both. 

Dramatic difference noted via top of memory usage and processor usage.  It has sped up transfers also.

[gsmyer]

Alright guys. I am kind of new to this as well and I too am having some slow transfer speeds. I have a gigabit network running on both the NAS and my computer. Previously, I was getting great transfer speed transferring large files in 10 minutes or let. Now however, when I attempt to transfer a 5gb file from the NAS to my computer, it only transfers at around 300kb with an estimated finish time of around 8 hours. I have Jumbo Frame Settings enabled at 9000. Does anyone have any insight as to what the problem could be? Are there any settings I could be missing? My OS is Windows 7 and my network is running off a TrendNET TEW-639GR router.

Whats weird is that my wife's computer is only 10/100 and it can transfer that 5gb file from the NAS to her computer in 15 minutes or less.

[fordem]

Obviously - if you can transfer the same 5GB file to your wife's computer in a shorter time than you can yours, the problem is unlikely to be the NAS or the network, so what are we left with ?

Your computer.

Try defragmenting your disk and see what happens.

[gsmyer]

Well I defrag my hard drives on a regular basis. I also hooked up my laptop which is running 10/100/1000, and it too was very slow at transferring the file.

[fordem]

We need to be very specific here ...

We're talking about one specific 5GB file - not just any 5GB file - that transfers to your wife's computer in under 15 minutes - and the very same file takes considerably longer to transfer to either of yours - if this is not so, then we will need to look elsewhere (if it's a different file, then you need to consider disk fragmentation on the disks in the NAS as a possibility).

The fact that you can transfer the file at a reasonable speed to your wife's computer immediately eliminates the NAS and the network path between it and your wife's computer as suspects - you need to look at the your two computers and the network path between them (where it differs from the network path to your wife's computer) and the NAS.

How about providing some details on the network itself?

[AKFubar]

How is "other traffic" on your network during the transfer?  Do you have torrents running while you are doing file transfers or any other app that may be sucking up bandwidth?

[gsmyer]

I've got no other applications taking up bandwidth. As far as my network goes, see the following:http://i858.photobucket.com/albums/ab149/gsmyer/NetworkLayout.gif

[hilaireg]

Nice Visio

If I read the posts correctly; the current issue is that large file transfer from your wife's (aka management) system is considerably quicker than that from the two workstations in the other room.

Assuming the systems are somewhat similar (ex: HDD RPM, NIC Speed, etc.), it may be worth running a cable tester on the lines (& wall jacks) to ensure that there isn't a cable related - miswire, cross pair, bad jack, interference, etc. 

HTH,