Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: file transfer speed is so slow in my gigabit ethernet  (Read 38251 times)
elementwang
Level 1 Member
*
Posts: 4


« on: July 29, 2009, 02:34:26 PM »

i'm very disappointed in the file transfer speed of my network.  i have dlink655 (gigabit router) as my router, my network adapter is intel gigabit network, Hard Drive is Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB and i use cat6 cable. i'm only getting about 5.8-5.9 MB/second (files>2G) from PC to router to dns323. what is wrong? any idea?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 02:40:38 PM by elementwang » Logged
D-Link Multimedia
Poweruser
Level 7 Member
*
Posts: 1066


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2009, 02:50:21 PM »

First step in diagnosing would be hook the 323 up directly to your intel card. Test throughput and see if it is still slow. If it is, its your card. If not then it points to the network.
Logged
fordem
Level 10 Member
*****
Posts: 2159


« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2009, 04:26:54 PM »

The DNS-323 is capable of over 20MB/sec on gigabit (and can hit 30+ MB/sec on gigabit with jumbo frame) - BUT - you need to remember that the DSN-323 is only one part of the file transfer process.  Don't assume that the average desktop with a gigabit network card can deliver gigabit speeds, it may not.

Just as an example - I can transfer files between my DNS-323 and my IBM server at approximately 24MB/sec (no jumbo frame) but to my gigabit equipped Dell desktop, the speeds average 6.5MB/sec
Logged

RAID1 is for disk redundancy - NOT data backup - don't confuse the two.
elementwang
Level 1 Member
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2009, 05:19:30 PM »

First step in diagnosing would be hook the 323 up directly to your intel card. Test throughput and see if it is still slow. If it is, its your card. If not then it points to the network.

Thanks, when i hook the 323  up directly to my intel card, i got about 6.1-6.33 MB/second, still is very slow. as you said, my network adapter is something wrong? it is came with motherbord.
Logged
elementwang
Level 1 Member
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2009, 05:26:51 PM »

The DNS-323 is capable of over 20MB/sec on gigabit (and can hit 30+ MB/sec on gigabit with jumbo frame) - BUT - you need to remember that the DSN-323 is only one part of the file transfer process.  Don't assume that the average desktop with a gigabit network card can deliver gigabit speeds, it may not.

Just as an example - I can transfer files between my DNS-323 and my IBM server at approximately 24MB/sec (no jumbo frame) but to my gigabit equipped Dell desktop, the speeds average 6.5MB/sec

so can i say gigabit network for home is a romantic vision?

by the way my old NDAS from Ximeta that is 100 ethernet but the average speed is 16 MB/sec. that is why i complain about the speed of 323
Logged
kawabunga18
Level 1 Member
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2009, 08:20:57 PM »

i'm very disappointed in the file transfer speed of my network.  i have dlink655 (gigabit router) as my router, my network adapter is intel gigabit network, Hard Drive is Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB and i use cat6 cable. i'm only getting about 5.8-5.9 MB/second (files>2G) from PC to router to dns323. what is wrong? any idea?

Haven't read the whole thread but ... did you hard set the interface on the NAS to gig? I think the default is auto.

-Kawa-
Logged
elementwang
Level 1 Member
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2009, 09:59:04 PM »

Thanks Kawa, i do set the 323 to gigabit mode (1000Mbps) and jumbo frame 9000, but nothing changed.
Logged
Piotr
Level 2 Member
**
Posts: 59


« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2009, 11:03:56 PM »

(...) that is 100 ethernet but the average speed is 16 MB/sec. that is why i complain about the speed of 323

Sorry, but it's simply not possible.12.5 MB/s is the theoretical maximum of 100 Mb/s networking.
Logged

DIR-655 H/W A2   FW 1.30EU    *    DSL-320B H/W D1  FW EU_1.21    *    DNS-323 H/W A1   FW 1.08b05    *    DWA-645 H/W A1
fordem
Level 10 Member
*****
Posts: 2159


« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2009, 05:19:50 AM »

so can i say gigabit network for home is a romantic vision?

by the way my old NDAS from Ximeta that is 100 ethernet but the average speed is 16 MB/sec. that is why i complain about the speed of 323

Think about it - in reality, anything over 100 mbps IS gigabit.

As to the romantic vision - if you wanted to you could implement a gigabit network in your home and install equipment capable of utilizing it's bandwidth, but in my opinion, the average home doesn't need it, in fact the average business doesn't need it.

Let's face it - to most home users, the network is just a way to share a broadband internet connection and the broadband connection IS the bottleneck.
Logged

RAID1 is for disk redundancy - NOT data backup - don't confuse the two.
Energata
Level 1 Member
*
Posts: 11


« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2009, 07:16:38 AM »

I am also getting 4-6 MB/s between my main workstation and my 323. Transferring to my other system on the GB network yields speeds anywhere between 75 MB/s - almost 100 MB/s. GB Network is set on the admin, as is Jumbo frame size set to 9000. High quality cat6 cables are being used.

2 x 1.5TB Seagate drives 7200.11

Very disappointed....
Logged
fordem
Level 10 Member
*****
Posts: 2159


« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2009, 09:47:47 AM »

I am also getting 4-6 MB/s between my main workstation and my 323. Transferring to my other system on the GB network yields speeds anywhere between 75 MB/s - almost 100 MB/s. GB Network is set on the admin, as is Jumbo frame size set to 9000. High quality cat6 cables are being used.

2 x 1.5TB Seagate drives 7200.11

Very disappointed....

Time to start troubleshooting - in the situation you describe the DNS-323 is capable of delivering approximately 30MB/sec
Logged

RAID1 is for disk redundancy - NOT data backup - don't confuse the two.
Energata
Level 1 Member
*
Posts: 11


« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2009, 01:07:37 PM »

Time to start troubleshooting - in the situation you describe the DNS-323 is capable of delivering approximately 30MB/sec

I agree. Do you have any recommendations fordem, that I can add to my list?

Logged
mig
Level 3 Member
***
Posts: 218


« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2009, 03:12:54 PM »

I agree. Do you have any recommendations fordem, that I can add to my list?

What are your transfer speeds if you disable jumbo frames on the DNS-323?
Logged
jmonfar
Level 1 Member
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2009, 02:02:54 AM »

Having as main computer a laptop with internal 100Mb/s ethernet, connected to the NAS through a Zyxel with 100Mb/s lan ports, was already measuring speeds of 8-9MB/s, not bad for theoretical limit of 12.5MB/s for 100Mb/s lan, considering protocol overhead and other inefficiencies.

So the first point is that 4-5MB/s for Gigabit is definitively VERY poor.

I later tried to upgrade the computer to Gigabit; not finding a expresscard Gb adapter, first tried a Belkin USB to ethernet gigabit capable adapter. Saw, frustrated, that speeds in direct cable connect 'upgraded' to only 11-12MB/s, barely below 100Mb/s limits. I know that USB can offer only half the bus speed than gigabit needs (480Mb/s vs. 1000Mb/s); but we can expect that the NAS itself will hit his own bottlenecks much lower than that, and USB should have been able to handle way more than the DNS can feed. It's not reasonable to expect 10x improvement with gigabit, but 20-25% is not worth the investment in adapters and gigabit capable switch (or router).

Another interesting point is that the USB adapter offered jumbo frames, but not other important optimizations, like checksum offload or large send optimization. CPU usage was going through the roof during transfers. Returned it.

Later tried a Netgear PCBUS(PCMCIA 32) Gb adapter. PCBUS bandwidth matches almost exactly gigabit. Most important, the card chipset (Realtek) offered checksum offload and LSO, even if the jumbo frames did go only up to 3k (or 7k with latest Realtek -not Netgear- drivers).

That made the difference: speed jumped up to 25MB/s either with direct cable connection or through a small gigabit D-Link switch. That's 3x improvement, and really makes worth the investment. It's consistent or higher with what I have read here and in reviews can be seen with DNS-323 with gigabit. And CPU usage is not higher than observed with 100mb/s.

At this point I guess that the disks, RAID and DNS CPU and buffer are hitting their limits, and no gigabit can help more. But it's a pretty good performance, for the DNS price point. You don't need to settle for less.

So, the second point, is that the ethernet adapter or port can make a big difference, and that not all labelled gigabit ports will really offer Gb speeds, be it for HW or driver problems.

Finally, even for a HW capable adapter, some tuning can be needed. Had the DNS initially configured with 9k Jumbo frames, and found that setting the PC adapter to 7k frames (the maximum) slowed down the transfers to 10Mb/s like speeds. That should not be that way: both devices should negotiate and settle to the lower common size, ant that's all. But in practice, had to set the DNS to 7k, too, and all was going up to the speeds avobe noted (over 25MB/s). Look also to the typical Windows TCP/IP window optimizations that Google can help to locate. Had all of them in place from before, but suspect that if not they could have limited transfers to below than the DNS can do.

Final morale is that there can be a number of bottlenecks: ethernet adapter HW, drivers, operating system TCP/IP optimizations, disk subsystems (in BOTH the PC and the DNS), network interconnect (direct cable, switch, router). You will slown down to match the lowest one in your setup. And you'll need to raise ALL of them above what the DNS can offer (25-30MB/s) to get the most of it.

In your case, it's likely something is not right in the PC network setup, or internal disk subsystem.
Logged
fordem
Level 10 Member
*****
Posts: 2159


« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2009, 05:49:44 AM »

If I could just add one single thing to jmonfar's excellent post ...

File size makes a significant difference.

For every file transferred, a certain amount of disk "housekeeping" must occur, storage blocks (sectors if you like) have to be marked as used and directory entries have to be created - these activities take place at what are essentially fixed locations that are often not adjacent to the location where the data is being written and the disks' read/write heads must swing backward & forward, and whilst this is happening, no data is being read or written.

The time taken to transfer a single 2GB file will be significantly less than that required to transfer 1000 x 2MB files, even though the volume of data can be considered to remain the same.
Logged

RAID1 is for disk redundancy - NOT data backup - don't confuse the two.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme by webtechnica.com.