Transferring at 14 MB/s thru gigabit network?

D

Dew itt right

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
3,314
Okay, so thanks to your help I was able to get my PC (in sig) and my new NAS (D-Lnik DNS-321) to connect to my router (D-Link DIR-655) at 1Gbps. So I went to start transferring data to the NAS and it was going steady at 10-14 MB/s! I double-checked the onboard LAN controller and the NAS and both are showing 1000 Mbps so I'm assuming the transfer is being held back by the router for some reason? I'm starting to turn off some of the QoS features but it's not helping. Any ideas?

BTW, the NAS has two new 500Gb Samsung F3's striped so it should be capable of a little more than 14 MB/s... :D
 
Are you serious? Only a handful of people complained about the transfer speeds in the reviews so i thought it may have just been a bad batch or old firmware version. Why would they sell an NAS that has GbE and RAID 0 support that can only transfer 15 MB/s? :mad:

The F3's are capable of 250MB/s, the network is capable of 125MB/s, and the NAS is stuck at 15MB/s...
 
Last edited:
Dew itt right said:
Are you serious? Only a handful of people complained about the transfer speeds in the reviews so i thought it may have just been a bad batch or old firmware version. Why would they sell an NAS that has GbE and RAID 0 support that can only transfer 15 MB/s? :mad:
Click to expand...

Because people don't want to pay what it costs for the hardware necessary to do it. Such NAS are available, but they're relatively expensive.
 
xenios said:
:( this is why i didnt skimp when buying my nas.
Click to expand...

Same here. If you want to actually use up gigabit speeds, you need a good NAS. <$200 prepackaged ones aren't good. That's why they're <$200.
 
Those rates are nothing strange. I have a DNS323 and I get 20MB/s at most. I threw in some Seagate 1.5TB 5900rpm drives into it because I knew the system would never deliver high throughput. 15MB/s is more then 100mbit LAN will take so the gigabit is a good thing.
 
I purschase the exact same NAS storage a few months ago and I return it due to the transfer speed. I could not get transfer speed greater than 15MB/s. It is best to spend a bit more and get a better NAS.

Just to add: this is on 1Gbps network. My WHS and HTPC get an average of 60MB/s.
 
Last edited:
14 MB/s is just a little over 100mbit.

100mbit is the same as 12.5 MB/s.

14 MB/s is the same as 112mbit.

1,000mbit (1gbit) should support up to 125 MB/s.

10,000mbit (10gbit) should support up to 1,250 MB/s (1.22 GB/s).

100,000mbit (100gbit) should support up to 12,500 MB/s (12.21 GB/s).

1,000,000mbit (1000gbit) should support up to 125,000 MB/s (122.07 GB/s).

:D Went crazy on the conversions, but yeah.

Most traditional mechanical harddrives will give you a transfer speed between 15 MB/s to 75 MB/s depending on what you are transferring (I have seen my Server 2008 do ~74 MB/s from HDD-to-HDD). Unless you are running RAID0 or have a very good SSD, it would either be (1) extremely rare for mechanicals, (2) rare in general, (3) and/or not possible to achieve 1/10gbit transfer rates.

EDIT: Correct me if I am wrong guys. :]
 
Last edited:
Wow.. thats horrible. I wonder why its so bad? My WHS with 5400RPM drives (no RAID) hits a wall @ 60MB/s and that is the drives themselves, not my network holding me back. The motherboard is a 5 year old DFI board so there is nothing special about the SATA controller.
 
Cerulean said:
14 MB/s is just a little over 100mbit.

100mbit is the same as 12.5 MB/s.

14 MB/s is the same as 112mbit.

1,000mbit (1gbit) should support up to 125 MB/s.

10,000mbit (10gbit) should support up to 1,250 MB/s (1.22 GB/s).

100,000mbit (100gbit) should support up to 12,500 MB/s (12.21 GB/s).

1,000,000mbit (1000gbit) should support up to 125,000 MB/s (122.07 GB/s).

:D Went crazy on the conversions, but yeah.

Most traditional mechanical harddrives will give you a transfer speed between 15 MB/s to 75 MB/s depending on what you are transferring (I have seen my Server 2008 do ~74 MB/s from HDD-to-HDD). Unless you are running RAID0 or have a very good SSD, it would either be (1) extremely rare for mechanicals, (2) rare in general, (3) and/or not possible to achieve 1/10gbit transfer rates.

EDIT: Correct me if I am wrong guys. :]
Click to expand...

You are right about the transfer rates, but with network overhead, 100Mbps maxes out at about 10.5-11MB/s and Giga maxes out at about 100MB/s.

But still, only 14MB/s for the NAS is bad, even with extreme network overhead and interference. What kind of cable are you using? If it is Cat5e or 6, you're fine, but if it is only Cat5, that will hold you back. Also, have you tried transfer rates between the NAS and different computers?
 
Cerulean said:
Most traditional mechanical harddrives will give you a transfer speed between 15 MB/s to 75 MB/s depending on what you are transferring (I have seen my Server 2008 do ~74 MB/s from HDD-to-HDD). Unless you are running RAID0 or have a very good SSD, it would either be (1) extremely rare for mechanicals, (2) rare in general, (3) and/or not possible to achieve 1/10gbit transfer rates.

EDIT: Correct me if I am wrong guys. :]
Click to expand...

My single WD 300GB 10krpm Valosaraptor can do ~120MB/s. Granted it's not something that you see often in a NAS... Still it's a bit faster then the 75MB/s ;)

As for the OP, I'd consider upgrading if Cat6 cable doesn't do the trick to bump speeds at all. I'd agree that you chould be seeing at least a little bit better transfer rates. I'd look into the network settings on your router and the NAS itself to make 100% sure that everything is set for 1Gb/s.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I guess I should've done more homework before getting into the NAS game. The only reasons were to setup an FTP site and use it for backing up the storage in my PC. It's too slow for my taste to use for storage backup so I'll probably just setup Filezilla on my PC and use it for FTP (making sure to leave my PC on at all times of course). Thanks guys...
 
pwrusr said:
My single WD 300GB 10krpm Valosaraptor can do ~120MB/s. Granted it's not something that you see often in a NAS... Still it's a bit faster then the 75MB/s ;)
Click to expand...

VelociRaptor. ;)

Can always build your own NAS with those, or better yet....some 15k rpm enterprise drives. But there goes your budget.
 
Without any tweaking, I was getting 400Mb/s transfers between my FreeNAS with a single WD Green 1TB and my PC with a single WD Black 640GB, through a switch that doesn't support jumbo frames.

http://www.networkedmediatank.com/archive/index.php/thread-18650.html & http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/...-323-d-link-dns-321-reviewed?showall=&start=3
Jumbo frames help writing to the dns-321 tremendously (25-26MB/s vs w/o: 18-19MB/s.). Reading is limited by the dns-321's crappy disc-controller. My test was done with a 720MB file using ftp xfer, mtu was set to 7200.
Click to expand...
I guess that is about a 1/3 increase in performance, but even the final number is horrible. My single Green is about twice as fast. I tend to agree with keenan's first reply and say that those cheap NAS devices just aren't made that well, and will never give you very good results.
 
yea, since the box is never turned off I decided the $700 atom based solution was way better in the long run. Oh and it does everything you could possibly imagine.
 
keenan said:
Agreed! The only problems are size and power consumption.
Click to expand...
Size, yeah kinda...
however there are cases that are pretty small to support a MATX or ITX board that are on par with the same size as a nas that you can buy off the shelf.

As for power? if you build a NAS with a Atom CPU at it's core you'll be using at most around 20-30 watts and most of that will be from the hard drives.
if you go all out with the CPU being a low end C2D based 45nm CPU you will be at around the 30-50 watt range.

With a case a little bigger and something that uses a little bit more power you'll have a system with ALOT more POWER to do what you want to do.
 
Just because 20W is relatively small doesn't make the fact that that's at least several times what a typical standalone NAS will use. 'Several times' is hardly insignificant, even if the absolute numbers are fairly small. And really, this hardware can do a lot better than this D-Link implementation would suggest. QNap has used the same SoC on some of their NAS that perform at least twice as well, and some of these NAS are fairly flexible if they provide or have been hacked to allow console access.

Also for cases, I've never seen a case the size of a 4-bay NAS that can fit a mini-ITX board, PSU and 4 hard drives. If you find one, at least for a reasonable price, let me know.

That said, I do agree with you and I would never buy one of these for myself; I have no problem running a quad-core server 24/7 ;-).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top