Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: transfer rate should be?

Expand Messages
  • donna foley
    Ok. thanks. I just did another backup and the drive its itself is running about a 10% duty cycler (access light to no light) and the network 100baseT was
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Ok. thanks. I just did another backup and the drive its itself is
      running about a 10% duty cycler (access light to no light) and the
      network 100baseT was about 15% utilization. Seems then like the
      bottle neck must be the NLSU2. I guess the WIKI says that too. I
      have a similar issue on PC going from ethernet to USB but Would have
      hoped that the Linksys unit would have been able to improve on that
      significantly.

      You think they can improve that in firmware?

      thanks


      --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen
      <i.b.arnesen@f...> wrote:
      > Sounds normal - check the wiki site
      > http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/Info/Performance
      >
      > It is a slug and a slow one at that, and the reason is still
      unclear. It is,
      > after all, a USB 2.0 device with a respectable processor. Someone
      messed up
      > somewhere, probably in the USB area. Possibly fixable in SW,
      probably not.
      >
      > -- Inge
      >
      > ----Original Message----
      > From: donna foley [mailto:dontbfooled2000@y...]
      > Sent: 5. februar 2005 23:10
      > To: nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [nslu2-general] transfer rate should be?
      >
      > > Its taking the NLSU about 6.5m/Gb to transfer to the HD.
      > > Is that about the rate your experiencing?
      > > the network utilization is about 20% and has a very
      > > periodic look to it.
      > >
      > > thanks!
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
    • Michael Wagner
      ... It is beginning to look like there are several, possibly unrelated, problems. When driven by different versions of Windows you can get radically different
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        At 2/6/05 06:51 PM, Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen wrote:
        >It is a slug and a slow one at that, and the reason is still unclear.

        It is beginning to look like there are several, possibly unrelated, problems.

        When driven by different versions of Windows you can get radically
        different write performance, from 150KB/s to 1.8MB/s (i.e. more than an
        order of magnitude difference).

        One theory was that it had to do with TCP window size, and bad or faulty
        logic to negotiate the window size.

        I was unable to test this further because I had to take the disk back into
        active service.

        Michael

        http://home.cogeco.ca/~michaelwagner/personal-page.htm
        "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die" Sheryl Crow


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • donna foley
        This is interesting. a 2nd PC backup today went faster. the first PC a P3 600mhz backup to NSLU2 went at about 12 Mbit/s with Network at 12% utilization on
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 6, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          This is interesting. a 2nd PC backup today went faster.
          the first PC a P3 600mhz backup to NSLU2 went at about 12 Mbit/s with
          Network at 12% utilization on average.
          the 2nd PC, a P4 1.8ghz backup to NSLU2 went at about 24 Mbit/s with
          Network at 25% utilization. The USB drive access light is running at
          about a 33% duty cycle so the drive is not maxed out.

          Is 25 Mbit/s about the best one can reasonably expect to get on a 100
          baseT?

          It doesnt make sense the first PC was so much slower. I noticed the
          ethernet card is in the last slot which I heard can slow it down cuz
          of interupts. I might try moving NIC and see if that makes a difference.

          Still, even at 25 Mb/s is a long time to wait for 44Gbyte to
          backup..about 3.5 - 4 hours. I think a direct connect USB drive takes
          about 1/3 as long and a backup to a IDE drive is even less.

          Are there ways to easily tweek the LAN to get significant transfer
          rate performance? Or is 25% utilization the best I shold expect on a
          100mb/s LAN?

          It is nice having the NAS on all the time and not worry about having
          to make sure someones PC acting as a server is powered on. I do wish
          is was faster and its disk format was NFTS, but this might work out
          afterall.

          thanks for any tips

          --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, Michael Wagner <michael@t...> wrote:
          > At 2/6/05 06:51 PM, Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen wrote:
          > >It is a slug and a slow one at that, and the reason is still unclear.
          >
          > It is beginning to look like there are several, possibly unrelated,
          problems.
          >
          > When driven by different versions of Windows you can get radically
          > different write performance, from 150KB/s to 1.8MB/s (i.e. more than an
          > order of magnitude difference).
          >
          > One theory was that it had to do with TCP window size, and bad or
          faulty
          > logic to negotiate the window size.
          >
          > I was unable to test this further because I had to take the disk
          back into
          > active service.
          >
          > Michael
          >
          > http://home.cogeco.ca/~michaelwagner/personal-page.htm
          > "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die" Sheryl Crow
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Gary Gutman
          Before I had settled on my enclosure (AMS Venus DS3), I had done some extesive research on realistic through put expectations. I found out that the cypress
          Message 4 of 14 , Feb 8, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Before I had settled on my enclosure (AMS Venus DS3), I had done
            some extesive research on realistic through put expectations. I
            found out that the cypress chipset was one of the highest performing
            chipest out there. I was unable to find any enclosure that perfomed
            much higher that about 25Mb/s when attached directly to a PC and
            using HDTach as the benchmark. Same exact drives would produce
            numbers that were almost doubled when attached directly to the IDE
            channel. Most reviewers attributed the loss of performance to the
            additional overhead of the USB chipsets inloved.

            Check out the following reviews of my enclosure, which consitently
            received high marks.
            http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/reviews/storage/Venus_DS3_Enclosur
            e_5.html

            http://www.barrys-rigs-n-
            reviews.com/reviews/2004/hardware/venus/venusds3_2.htm


            So the numbers you are seeing are more or less on par with what's
            expected from external enclosures.

            Regarsd,
            mrgary

            --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, "donna foley"
            <dontbfooled2000@y...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > This is interesting. a 2nd PC backup today went faster.
            > the first PC a P3 600mhz backup to NSLU2 went at about 12 Mbit/s
            with
            > Network at 12% utilization on average.
            > the 2nd PC, a P4 1.8ghz backup to NSLU2 went at about 24 Mbit/s
            with
            > Network at 25% utilization. The USB drive access light is running
            at
            > about a 33% duty cycle so the drive is not maxed out.
            >
            > Is 25 Mbit/s about the best one can reasonably expect to get on a
            100
            > baseT?
            >
            > It doesnt make sense the first PC was so much slower. I noticed
            the
            > ethernet card is in the last slot which I heard can slow it down
            cuz
            > of interupts. I might try moving NIC and see if that makes a
            difference.
            >
            > Still, even at 25 Mb/s is a long time to wait for 44Gbyte to
            > backup..about 3.5 - 4 hours. I think a direct connect USB drive
            takes
            > about 1/3 as long and a backup to a IDE drive is even less.
            >
            > Are there ways to easily tweek the LAN to get significant transfer
            > rate performance? Or is 25% utilization the best I shold expect
            on a
            > 100mb/s LAN?
            >
            > It is nice having the NAS on all the time and not worry about
            having
            > to make sure someones PC acting as a server is powered on. I do
            wish
            > is was faster and its disk format was NFTS, but this might work out
            > afterall.
            >
            > thanks for any tips
            >
            > --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, Michael Wagner
            <michael@t...> wrote:
            > > At 2/6/05 06:51 PM, Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen wrote:
            > > >It is a slug and a slow one at that, and the reason is still
            unclear.
            > >
            > > It is beginning to look like there are several, possibly
            unrelated,
            > problems.
            > >
            > > When driven by different versions of Windows you can get
            radically
            > > different write performance, from 150KB/s to 1.8MB/s (i.e. more
            than an
            > > order of magnitude difference).
            > >
            > > One theory was that it had to do with TCP window size, and bad or
            > faulty
            > > logic to negotiate the window size.
            > >
            > > I was unable to test this further because I had to take the disk
            > back into
            > > active service.
            > >
            > > Michael
            > >
            > > http://home.cogeco.ca/~michaelwagner/personal-page.htm
            > > "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die" Sheryl Crow
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • donna foley
            thats real good input. HOwever the numbers Im reporting are bits. the Testing is reporting Bytes so my transfer via the NSLU2 is about 1/8 that reported in the
            Message 5 of 14 , Feb 8, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              thats real good input. HOwever the numbers Im reporting are bits.
              the Testing is reporting Bytes so my transfer via the NSLU2 is about
              1/8 that reported in the tests. My drive is much much fasster when
              doing direct on the PC USB, its when operating via the NSLU2 that
              seems to slow it down significantly.

              --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Gutman" <mrgaryg@y...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Before I had settled on my enclosure (AMS Venus DS3), I had done
              > some extesive research on realistic through put expectations. I
              > found out that the cypress chipset was one of the highest
              performing
              > chipest out there. I was unable to find any enclosure that perfomed
              > much higher that about 25Mb/s when attached directly to a PC and
              > using HDTach as the benchmark. Same exact drives would produce
              > numbers that were almost doubled when attached directly to the IDE
              > channel. Most reviewers attributed the loss of performance to the
              > additional overhead of the USB chipsets inloved.
              >
              > Check out the following reviews of my enclosure, which consitently
              > received high marks.
              >
              http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/reviews/storage/Venus_DS3_Enclosur
              > e_5.html
              >
              > http://www.barrys-rigs-n-
              > reviews.com/reviews/2004/hardware/venus/venusds3_2.htm
              >
              >
              > So the numbers you are seeing are more or less on par with what's
              > expected from external enclosures.
              >
              > Regarsd,
              > mrgary
              >
              > --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, "donna foley"
              > <dontbfooled2000@y...> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > This is interesting. a 2nd PC backup today went faster.
              > > the first PC a P3 600mhz backup to NSLU2 went at about 12 Mbit/s
              > with
              > > Network at 12% utilization on average.
              > > the 2nd PC, a P4 1.8ghz backup to NSLU2 went at about 24 Mbit/s
              > with
              > > Network at 25% utilization. The USB drive access light is
              running
              > at
              > > about a 33% duty cycle so the drive is not maxed out.
              > >
              > > Is 25 Mbit/s about the best one can reasonably expect to get on a
              > 100
              > > baseT?
              > >
              > > It doesnt make sense the first PC was so much slower. I noticed
              > the
              > > ethernet card is in the last slot which I heard can slow it down
              > cuz
              > > of interupts. I might try moving NIC and see if that makes a
              > difference.
              > >
              > > Still, even at 25 Mb/s is a long time to wait for 44Gbyte to
              > > backup..about 3.5 - 4 hours. I think a direct connect USB drive
              > takes
              > > about 1/3 as long and a backup to a IDE drive is even less.
              > >
              > > Are there ways to easily tweek the LAN to get significant transfer
              > > rate performance? Or is 25% utilization the best I shold expect
              > on a
              > > 100mb/s LAN?
              > >
              > > It is nice having the NAS on all the time and not worry about
              > having
              > > to make sure someones PC acting as a server is powered on. I do
              > wish
              > > is was faster and its disk format was NFTS, but this might work
              out
              > > afterall.
              > >
              > > thanks for any tips
              > >
              > > --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, Michael Wagner
              > <michael@t...> wrote:
              > > > At 2/6/05 06:51 PM, Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen wrote:
              > > > >It is a slug and a slow one at that, and the reason is still
              > unclear.
              > > >
              > > > It is beginning to look like there are several, possibly
              > unrelated,
              > > problems.
              > > >
              > > > When driven by different versions of Windows you can get
              > radically
              > > > different write performance, from 150KB/s to 1.8MB/s (i.e. more
              > than an
              > > > order of magnitude difference).
              > > >
              > > > One theory was that it had to do with TCP window size, and bad
              or
              > > faulty
              > > > logic to negotiate the window size.
              > > >
              > > > I was unable to test this further because I had to take the disk
              > > back into
              > > > active service.
              > > >
              > > > Michael
              > > >
              > > > http://home.cogeco.ca/~michaelwagner/personal-page.htm
              > > > "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die" Sheryl Crow
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen
              What are your enclosure read/write speeds (not network speeds, just disk) when hooked up to the NSLU2? -- Inge ... From: donna foley
              Message 6 of 14 , Feb 8, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                What are your enclosure read/write speeds (not network speeds, just disk)
                when hooked up to the NSLU2?

                -- Inge

                ----Original Message----
                From: donna foley [mailto:dontbfooled2000@...]
                Sent: 8. februar 2005 17:52
                To: nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [nslu2-general] Re: transfer rate should be?

                > thats real good input. HOwever the numbers Im reporting
                > are bits. the Testing is reporting Bytes so my transfer
                > via the NSLU2 is about 1/8 that reported in the tests.
                > My drive is much much fasster when doing direct on the PC
                > USB, its when operating via the NSLU2 that seems to slow
                > it down significantly.
                >
                > --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Gutman" <mrgaryg@y...>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > Before I had settled on my enclosure (AMS Venus DS3), I
                > > had done some extesive research on realistic through
                > > put expectations. I found out that the cypress chipset
                > > was one of the highest
                > performing
                > > chipest out there. I was unable to find any enclosure
                > > that perfomed much higher that about 25Mb/s when
                > > attached directly to a PC and using HDTach as the benchmark. Same
                > > exact drives would produce numbers that were almost doubled when
                > > attached directly to the IDE channel. Most reviewers attributed the
                > > loss of performance to the additional overhead of the USB
                > > chipsets inloved.
                > >
                > > Check out the following reviews of my enclosure, which consitently
                > > received high marks.
                > >
                > http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/reviews/storage/Venus_DS3_Enclosur
                > > e_5.html
                > >
                > > http://www.barrys-rigs-n-
                > > reviews.com/reviews/2004/hardware/venus/venusds3_2.htm
                > >
                > >
                > > So the numbers you are seeing are more or less on par
                > > with what's expected from external enclosures.
                > >
                > > Regarsd,
                > > mrgary
                > >
                > > --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, "donna foley"
                > > <dontbfooled2000@y...> wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > This is interesting. a 2nd PC backup today went
                > > > faster.
                > > > the first PC a P3 600mhz backup to NSLU2 went at
                > > > about 12 Mbit/s
                > > with
                > > > Network at 12% utilization on average.
                > > > the 2nd PC, a P4 1.8ghz backup to NSLU2 went at about
                > > > 24 Mbit/s
                > > with
                > > > Network at 25% utilization. The USB drive access
                > > > light is
                > running
                > > at
                > > > about a 33% duty cycle so the drive is not maxed out.
                > > >
                > > > Is 25 Mbit/s about the best one can reasonably expect
                > > > to get on a
                > > 100
                > > > baseT?
                > > >
                > > > It doesnt make sense the first PC was so much slower.
                > > > I noticed
                > > the
                > > > ethernet card is in the last slot which I heard can
                > > > slow it down
                > > cuz
                > > > of interupts. I might try moving NIC and see if that makes a
                > > difference.
                > > >
                > > > Still, even at 25 Mb/s is a long time to wait for
                > > > 44Gbyte to backup..about 3.5 - 4 hours. I think a
                > > > direct connect USB drive
                > > takes
                > > > about 1/3 as long and a backup to a IDE drive is even
                > > > less.
                > > >
                > > > Are there ways to easily tweek the LAN to get
                > > > significant transfer rate performance? Or is 25%
                > > > utilization the best I shold expect
                > > on a
                > > > 100mb/s LAN?
                > > >
                > > > It is nice having the NAS on all the time and not
                > > > worry about
                > > having
                > > > to make sure someones PC acting as a server is
                > > > powered on. I do
                > > wish
                > > > is was faster and its disk format was NFTS, but this
                > > > might work
                > out
                > > > afterall.
                > > >
                > > > thanks for any tips
                > > >
                > > > --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, Michael Wagner
                > > <michael@t...> wrote:
                > > > > At 2/6/05 06:51 PM, Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen wrote:
                > > > > > It is a slug and a slow one at that, and the
                > > > > > reason is still
                > > unclear.
                > > > >
                > > > > It is beginning to look like there are several,
                > > > > possibly
                > > unrelated,
                > > > problems.
                > > > >
                > > > > When driven by different versions of Windows you
                > > > > can get
                > > radically
                > > > > different write performance, from 150KB/s to
                > > > > 1.8MB/s (i.e. more
                > > than an
                > > > > order of magnitude difference).
                > > > >
                > > > > One theory was that it had to do with TCP window
                > > > > size, and bad
                > or
                > > > faulty
                > > > > logic to negotiate the window size.
                > > > >
                > > > > I was unable to test this further because I had to
                > > > > take the disk
                > > > back into
                > > > > active service.
                > > > >
                > > > > Michael
                > > > >
                > > > > http://home.cogeco.ca/~michaelwagner/personal-page.htm
                > > > > "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die"
                > > > > Sheryl Crow
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                > > > > removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
              • donna foley
                I dont know how to measure or read rate from NSLU2 to USB drive....however..... I can see is that the average transfer rate, from PC over LAN to NSLU2, without
                Message 7 of 14 , Feb 8, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  I dont know how to measure or read rate from NSLU2 to USB
                  drive....however.....

                  I can see is that the average transfer rate, from PC over LAN to
                  NSLU2, without any other network activity, and it is 25-30
                  MegaBits/second. Thats on 2 seperate and brand new PCs (P4 3Ghz. XP
                  SP2). Im fairly sure that the disk or enclosure are not near data
                  input rate capacity as the Disk access light is only on for about 20-
                  30% of the time during a backup. ON both of these the CPU is about
                  30% utilized.

                  On an older P3 600Mhz XP PC, the transfer rate is only about 12
                  Megbits/s and CPU is 100% utilized.

                  I think the Wiki referred to early, I think you posted?....states
                  about the same transfer rates as Im seeing and ultimately lays the
                  poor performance blame on the NSLU2 with hopefully a firmware
                  improvement down the road to improve that.

                  I guess thats where I am on it now. I have to live with it. Its
                  still a better situation then using one of my PCs as a server. But a
                  44G backup takes over 4 hours. I should say that Im using Ghost to
                  backup disk images and it does do processing and compression but Im
                  sure thats not the bottle neck becuase I can backup Disk to Disk or
                  ever Disk to USB connected direct to the PC in probably 1/5 the time
                  as when using the NFSLU2.

                  If you think there is a way to improve transfer rate, Id love to hear
                  it.

                  thanks!


                  --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen
                  <i.b.arnesen@f...> wrote:
                  > What are your enclosure read/write speeds (not network speeds, just
                  disk)
                  > when hooked up to the NSLU2?
                  >
                  > -- Inge
                  >
                  > ----Original Message----
                  > From: donna foley [mailto:dontbfooled2000@y...]
                  > Sent: 8. februar 2005 17:52
                  > To: nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [nslu2-general] Re: transfer rate should be?
                  >
                  > > thats real good input. HOwever the numbers Im reporting
                  > > are bits. the Testing is reporting Bytes so my transfer
                  > > via the NSLU2 is about 1/8 that reported in the tests.
                  > > My drive is much much fasster when doing direct on the PC
                  > > USB, its when operating via the NSLU2 that seems to slow
                  > > it down significantly.
                  > >
                  > > --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Gutman"
                  <mrgaryg@y...>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Before I had settled on my enclosure (AMS Venus DS3), I
                  > > > had done some extesive research on realistic through
                  > > > put expectations. I found out that the cypress chipset
                  > > > was one of the highest
                  > > performing
                  > > > chipest out there. I was unable to find any enclosure
                  > > > that perfomed much higher that about 25Mb/s when
                  > > > attached directly to a PC and using HDTach as the benchmark.
                  Same
                  > > > exact drives would produce numbers that were almost doubled
                  when
                  > > > attached directly to the IDE channel. Most reviewers
                  attributed the
                  > > > loss of performance to the additional overhead of the USB
                  > > > chipsets inloved.
                  > > >
                  > > > Check out the following reviews of my enclosure, which
                  consitently
                  > > > received high marks.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/reviews/storage/Venus_DS3_Enclosur
                  > > > e_5.html
                  > > >
                  > > > http://www.barrys-rigs-n-
                  > > > reviews.com/reviews/2004/hardware/venus/venusds3_2.htm
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > So the numbers you are seeing are more or less on par
                  > > > with what's expected from external enclosures.
                  > > >
                  > > > Regarsd,
                  > > > mrgary
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, "donna foley"
                  > > > <dontbfooled2000@y...> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > This is interesting. a 2nd PC backup today went
                  > > > > faster.
                  > > > > the first PC a P3 600mhz backup to NSLU2 went at
                  > > > > about 12 Mbit/s
                  > > > with
                  > > > > Network at 12% utilization on average.
                  > > > > the 2nd PC, a P4 1.8ghz backup to NSLU2 went at about
                  > > > > 24 Mbit/s
                  > > > with
                  > > > > Network at 25% utilization. The USB drive access
                  > > > > light is
                  > > running
                  > > > at
                  > > > > about a 33% duty cycle so the drive is not maxed out.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Is 25 Mbit/s about the best one can reasonably expect
                  > > > > to get on a
                  > > > 100
                  > > > > baseT?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > It doesnt make sense the first PC was so much slower.
                  > > > > I noticed
                  > > > the
                  > > > > ethernet card is in the last slot which I heard can
                  > > > > slow it down
                  > > > cuz
                  > > > > of interupts. I might try moving NIC and see if that makes a
                  > > > difference.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Still, even at 25 Mb/s is a long time to wait for
                  > > > > 44Gbyte to backup..about 3.5 - 4 hours. I think a
                  > > > > direct connect USB drive
                  > > > takes
                  > > > > about 1/3 as long and a backup to a IDE drive is even
                  > > > > less.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Are there ways to easily tweek the LAN to get
                  > > > > significant transfer rate performance? Or is 25%
                  > > > > utilization the best I shold expect
                  > > > on a
                  > > > > 100mb/s LAN?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > It is nice having the NAS on all the time and not
                  > > > > worry about
                  > > > having
                  > > > > to make sure someones PC acting as a server is
                  > > > > powered on. I do
                  > > > wish
                  > > > > is was faster and its disk format was NFTS, but this
                  > > > > might work
                  > > out
                  > > > > afterall.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > thanks for any tips
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, Michael Wagner
                  > > > <michael@t...> wrote:
                  > > > > > At 2/6/05 06:51 PM, Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen wrote:
                  > > > > > > It is a slug and a slow one at that, and the
                  > > > > > > reason is still
                  > > > unclear.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > It is beginning to look like there are several,
                  > > > > > possibly
                  > > > unrelated,
                  > > > > problems.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > When driven by different versions of Windows you
                  > > > > > can get
                  > > > radically
                  > > > > > different write performance, from 150KB/s to
                  > > > > > 1.8MB/s (i.e. more
                  > > > than an
                  > > > > > order of magnitude difference).
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > One theory was that it had to do with TCP window
                  > > > > > size, and bad
                  > > or
                  > > > > faulty
                  > > > > > logic to negotiate the window size.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > I was unable to test this further because I had to
                  > > > > > take the disk
                  > > > > back into
                  > > > > > active service.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Michael
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > http://home.cogeco.ca/~michaelwagner/personal-page.htm
                  > > > > > "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die"
                  > > > > > Sheryl Crow
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                  > > > > > removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                • Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen
                  ... For how to do a rough speed measurement of your disks on the slug, see the Disk speed section of http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/Info/Performance In
                  Message 8 of 14 , Feb 8, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I dont know how to measure or read rate from NSLU2 to USB
                    > drive....however.....

                    For how to do a rough speed measurement of your disks on the slug, see the
                    "Disk speed" section of http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/Info/Performance

                    In general: If your Samba transfer numbers differ significantly from the
                    numbers found on the wiki, then you could do worse than trying to isolate
                    which of the chains of the link that are to blame.

                    > I think the Wiki referred to early, I think you
                    > posted?....states
                    > about the same transfer rates as Im seeing and ultimately
                    > lays the
                    > poor performance blame on the NSLU2 with hopefully a
                    > firmware
                    > improvement down the road to improve that.

                    Don't bet on that. For future investment in your NSLU2, expect performance
                    to remaint pretty much like it is today.

                    > If you think there is a way to improve transfer rate, Id
                    > love to hear it.

                    Well, it would involve looking at the datasheets and see if the appalingly
                    slow USB read/write speeds are in tune with them. If they are - forget it -
                    just bad HW design. If they are not, or there are no such performance
                    claims, hooking up a USB bus analyser and looking at the driver could be a
                    way to go (for those capable and with the right equipment).

                    best,

                    -- Inge
                  • Michael Wagner
                    ... As would we all ... :-) Michael http://home.cogeco.ca/~michaelwagner/personal-page.htm All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die Sheryl Crow
                    Message 9 of 14 , Feb 8, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 2/8/05 01:03 PM, donna foley wrote:
                      >If you think there is a way to improve transfer rate, Id love to hear it.

                      As would we all ... :-)

                      Michael

                      http://home.cogeco.ca/~michaelwagner/personal-page.htm
                      "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die" Sheryl Crow


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • donna foley
                      OK..thanks. Im running the factory OS. I suspect your referring to one the other Linux loads below? I looked at the Buffalo NAS 200gb unit to see performance
                      Message 10 of 14 , Feb 8, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        OK..thanks. Im running the factory OS. I suspect your referring to
                        one the other Linux loads below?

                        I looked at the Buffalo NAS 200gb unit to see performance comparison
                        and found some info....I think it was PC Magazine..sorry dont have
                        url...(I did a search on Buffalo NAS). But write speed was about
                        5.5MegBytes/s or about 44Megabits/s. I would think thats unit would
                        represent what is typical for commerical purpose built NAS w/ matched
                        harddrive. Thats not to horribly far off what Im seeing which can be
                        a sustained high as much as about 35 Megbit/s. So its not like Nslu2
                        is way off much. It could also be something else in my system
                        slowing things down.


                        --- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen
                        <i.b.arnesen@f...> wrote:
                        > > I dont know how to measure or read rate from NSLU2 to USB
                        > > drive....however.....
                        >
                        > For how to do a rough speed measurement of your disks on the slug,
                        see the
                        > "Disk speed" section of http://www.nslu2-
                        linux.org/wiki/Info/Performance
                        >
                        > In general: If your Samba transfer numbers differ significantly
                        from the
                        > numbers found on the wiki, then you could do worse than trying to
                        isolate
                        > which of the chains of the link that are to blame.
                        >
                        > > I think the Wiki referred to early, I think you
                        > > posted?....states
                        > > about the same transfer rates as Im seeing and ultimately
                        > > lays the
                        > > poor performance blame on the NSLU2 with hopefully a
                        > > firmware
                        > > improvement down the road to improve that.
                        >
                        > Don't bet on that. For future investment in your NSLU2, expect
                        performance
                        > to remaint pretty much like it is today.
                        >
                        > > If you think there is a way to improve transfer rate, Id
                        > > love to hear it.
                        >
                        > Well, it would involve looking at the datasheets and see if the
                        appalingly
                        > slow USB read/write speeds are in tune with them. If they are -
                        forget it -
                        > just bad HW design. If they are not, or there are no such
                        performance
                        > claims, hooking up a USB bus analyser and looking at the driver
                        could be a
                        > way to go (for those capable and with the right equipment).
                        >
                        > best,
                        >
                        > -- Inge
                      • Michael Wagner
                        ... Long ago, in a previous lifetime it seems, I was a performance analyst. It was before the time of 100BT, but the basic ideas are the same. About the best
                        Message 11 of 14 , Feb 8, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 2/8/05 07:01 PM, you wrote:
                          >Buffalo NAS ... write speed was about 5.5MegBytes/s or about 44Megabits/s.

                          Long ago, in a previous lifetime it seems, I was a performance analyst.

                          It was before the time of 100BT, but the basic ideas are the same.

                          About the best performance you can expect out of shared media (old style
                          co-ax ethernet or ethernet with hubs rather than switches) is about half
                          the theoretical bandwidth, because collisions (and collision avoidance
                          techniques) eat up a lot and each node has a certain latency when it gets
                          the go-ahead again.

                          So 100BT (the "normal" ethernet these days) should deliver about 50Mb/s,
                          more or less.

                          If the Buffalo does 44, that's not bad.

                          A switch rather than a hub should theoretically improve the situation, but
                          it depends on a lot of factors whether it in fact does or not.

                          My tests of the Linksys (hub, not switch) yielded a maximum speed of
                          1.8MB/s or 14.4Mb/s (so nowhere near the speed where the network is the
                          bottleneck).

                          If and when time permits, I'll hook up my slug again and try to test it
                          more rigorously.

                          Don't hold your breath, though :-( Life has been hectic.

                          Michael

                          > I would think thats unit would
                          >represent what is typical for commerical purpose built NAS w/ matched
                          >harddrive. Thats not to horribly far off what Im seeing which can be
                          >a sustained high as much as about 35 Megbit/s. So its not like Nslu2
                          >is way off much. It could also be something else in my system
                          >slowing things down.
                          >
                          >
                          >--- In nslu2-general@yahoogroups.com, Inge Bjørnvall Arnesen
                          ><i.b.arnesen@f...> wrote:
                          > > > I dont know how to measure or read rate from NSLU2 to USB
                          > > > drive....however.....
                          > >
                          > > For how to do a rough speed measurement of your disks on the slug,
                          >see the
                          > > "Disk speed" section of http://www.nslu2-
                          >linux.org/wiki/Info/Performance
                          > >
                          > > In general: If your Samba transfer numbers differ significantly
                          >from the
                          > > numbers found on the wiki, then you could do worse than trying to
                          >isolate
                          > > which of the chains of the link that are to blame.
                          > >
                          > > > I think the Wiki referred to early, I think you
                          > > > posted?....states
                          > > > about the same transfer rates as Im seeing and ultimately
                          > > > lays the
                          > > > poor performance blame on the NSLU2 with hopefully a
                          > > > firmware
                          > > > improvement down the road to improve that.
                          > >
                          > > Don't bet on that. For future investment in your NSLU2, expect
                          >performance
                          > > to remaint pretty much like it is today.
                          > >
                          > > > If you think there is a way to improve transfer rate, Id
                          > > > love to hear it.
                          > >
                          > > Well, it would involve looking at the datasheets and see if the
                          >appalingly
                          > > slow USB read/write speeds are in tune with them. If they are -
                          >forget it -
                          > > just bad HW design. If they are not, or there are no such
                          >performance
                          > > claims, hooking up a USB bus analyser and looking at the driver
                          >could be a
                          > > way to go (for those capable and with the right equipment).
                          > >
                          > > best,
                          > >
                          > > -- Inge
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >

                          http://home.cogeco.ca/~michaelwagner/personal-page.htm
                          "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die" Sheryl Crow


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Michael Wagner
                          ... I should have said, out of shared media running IP I believe certain combinations of protocols and circumstances can do better than 50%, at least in the
                          Message 12 of 14 , Feb 8, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 2/8/05 08:48 PM, I wrote:
                            >About the best performance you can expect out of shared media (old style
                            >co-ax ethernet or ethernet with hubs rather than switches)

                            I should have said, "out of shared media running IP"

                            I believe certain combinations of protocols and circumstances can do better
                            than 50%, at least in the short term.

                            Michael

                            http://home.cogeco.ca/~michaelwagner/personal-page.htm
                            "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die" Sheryl Crow


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.