NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Justin_S
Sep 18, 2011Aspirant
Performance halved at a stroke (ReadyNAS Duo, 4.1.8) ...
In a busy few weeks, my little ReadyNAS Duo's performance seems to have halved at a stroke. The problem seems to be a consequence of upgrading to RAIDiator 4.1.8 (release) and performing a full facto...
Nasinator
Oct 14, 2011Aspirant
Ok here is a breakdown of some testing I did:
Netgear ReadyNAS NV+
Testing 4.1.7 vs. 4.1.8 Performance
ReadyNAS Configuration:
Testing Methodology:
I’ve found that using IOMeter is not indicative of real world performance. So I opted for using drag and drop testing as that’s how most real world file moving is done. I used the file iobw.tst that IOMeter generates in all read and write tests. All tests were drag and drop tests. I rotated between filenames iobw.tst and iobw2.tst for each test to make sure caching was out of play. All performance numbers were recorded from the rate the OS reports just as the file is finishing its copy. I used an empty share I created just for this testing. For Jumbo Frames testing, the system was tested with Jumbo frames enabled on all client and NAS components. During standard MTU testing all client and NAS components were set to Auto or 1500. The admin interface was never loaded while testing.
Network Topology:
**Note WNDR3700v1 is running DD-WRT v17201**
Now that is out of the way, Here are the numbers:
These numbers clearly show that 4.1.7 is by far the performance leader across all platforms, with 4.1.8-T9 in second, and 4.1.8 in dead last by a rather large and disturbing margin taking a HUGE hit in CIFS read performance. Which I believe is what many other people are seeing as well.
I hope this helps Yoh-dah.
Thanks,
-Nasinator
Netgear ReadyNAS NV+
Testing 4.1.7 vs. 4.1.8 Performance
Test Machines (All fully patched to 10/14/2011):
1) Windows 7 (64-bit)
a. Intel i7 (gen2) 2600K 3.4Ghz
16 GB Ram
ASUS P8P67 Deluxe
b. Tests Performed using the Onboard Intel 82579V Gig Nic
2) OSX Lion 10.7.2
a. Mac Pro 1,1
2x 3.0GHz dual core Xeon Processors
8 GB of Ram
Onboard Nic
3) Ubuntu 11.04 (64-bit) Linux
a. Shuttle SN25P
Nforce4 Chipset
AMD 64 Dual Core FX60 2.6 GHz (Socket 939)
2 GB Ram
Onboard Nvidia GB Nic
ReadyNAS Configuration:
Stock ReadyNAS NV+ (no memory mod)
4x Seagate Barracuda ST31000524AS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5 (on the HCL)
Hard drives configured in X-RAID
All services but CIFS turned off
All discovery services off
No addons installed or enabled
All Journaling turned off
CIFS Fast writes enabled
Optimize for OSX Enabled
Testing Methodology:
I’ve found that using IOMeter is not indicative of real world performance. So I opted for using drag and drop testing as that’s how most real world file moving is done. I used the file iobw.tst that IOMeter generates in all read and write tests. All tests were drag and drop tests. I rotated between filenames iobw.tst and iobw2.tst for each test to make sure caching was out of play. All performance numbers were recorded from the rate the OS reports just as the file is finishing its copy. I used an empty share I created just for this testing. For Jumbo Frames testing, the system was tested with Jumbo frames enabled on all client and NAS components. During standard MTU testing all client and NAS components were set to Auto or 1500. The admin interface was never loaded while testing.
Network Topology:
**Note WNDR3700v1 is running DD-WRT v17201**
Netgear GS105v2-----------------------------------WNDR3700v1-------------------------------------Netgear GS105v2
|----Mac OSX Client ReadyNAS NV+----|
|----Windows 7 (64bit) Client Ubuntu 11.04 (64bit) Client----|
Now that is out of the way, Here are the numbers:
All numbers in MB/s
Win 7 (64 bit) OSX 10.7.2 Ubuntu 11.04 (64-bit)
4.1.7 (MTU = 9000)
Read 38.2 36.2 22.6
Write 27.5 25.2 13.7
4.1.7 (MTU = 1500)
Read 20.2 26.7 16.3
Write 21.1 21.1 11.9
4.1.8 (MTU = 1500)
Read 7.5 27.7 7.9
Write 16.8 17.3 9.9
4.1.8 (MTU = 9000)
Read 11.1 11.9 10.6
Write 23.6 23.2 12.7
4.1.8-T9 (MTU = 9000)
Read 27.6 32.1 22.4
Write 27.7 25.3 13.2
4.1.8-T9 (MTU = 1500)
Read 20.3 26.7 16.5
Write 20.8 20.7 11.7
These numbers clearly show that 4.1.7 is by far the performance leader across all platforms, with 4.1.8-T9 in second, and 4.1.8 in dead last by a rather large and disturbing margin taking a HUGE hit in CIFS read performance. Which I believe is what many other people are seeing as well.
I hope this helps Yoh-dah.
Thanks,
-Nasinator
Related Content
NETGEAR Academy

Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!