NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
adiamond2
May 24, 2017Aspirant
Readynas 104, Avast AV, Malewarebytes. Yikes!
I have 4 drives in a Raid 5 config. I have been encountering very slow speeds with smaller files. So, I conducted a test using a directory of 164 small files totalling about 200KB [sic]. The tes...
jak0lantash
May 25, 2017Mentor
5400RPM is definitely slower for access. Though a brand new WD Red 5400RPM might be faster than a 10 yo 7200RPM disk.
If you have room for a cheap SSD, you could try that too. But keep in mind that the RN104 has the weakest CPU among NETGEAR ReadyNAS products.
If you have room for a cheap SSD, you could try that too. But keep in mind that the RN104 has the weakest CPU among NETGEAR ReadyNAS products.
- adiamond2May 25, 2017Aspirant
Thanks. I'm really kind of amazed. I wasn't expecting a fast NAS but I thought for single person use it would be sufficient. And it might be but AV and much worse Malwarebytes and AV really puts a nail in its coffin.
BTW, do you know anything about the "and also" question in my post:
One more interesting item:
When I do a Properties on the copied directory on the SSD vs the NAS, they both report 200K for the files but the SSD rports 420KB actually occupied on disk while the NAS reports 10.2MB! That's seems a bit much of a disparity. These files are about 1K actual each which for the NAS comes out to be each 1K file taking about 64K (well, 62K) of disk space.
- jak0lantashMay 25, 2017Mentor
adiamond2 wrote:When I do a Properties on the copied directory on the SSD vs the NAS, they both report 200K for the files but the SSD rports 420KB actually occupied on disk while the NAS reports 10.2MB! That's seems a bit much of a disparity. These files are about 1K actual each which for the NAS comes out to be each 1K file taking about 64K (well, 62K) of disk space.
I'm not sure, I don't think it's due to chunk size. It could be due to imprecise counting (round up).
You could check directly on BTRFS (in your case, you probably want to use --kbytes flag):
# btrfs fi us --kbytes /data Overall: Device size: 1948664832.00KiB Device allocated: 1309745152.00KiB Device unallocated: 638919680.00KiB Device missing: 0.00KiB Used: 1306251520.00KiB Free (estimated): 641020928.00KiB (min: 321561056.00KiB) Data ratio: 1.00 Metadata ratio: 2.00 Global reserve: 26080.00KiB (used: 0.00KiB) Data,single: Size:1307582464.00KiB, Used:1305481216.00KiB /dev/md127 1307582464.00KiB Metadata,DUP: Size:1048576.00KiB, Used:384928.00KiB /dev/md127 2097152.00KiB System,DUP: Size:32768.00KiB, Used:192.00KiB /dev/md127 65536.00KiB Unallocated: /dev/md127 638919680.00KiB
While the ratio is huge, 10MB remains tiny compared to volume capacity.
- StephenBMay 25, 2017Guru - Experienced User
Samba "fudges" some of the information it reports - that might also account for the difference.
Related Content
NETGEAR Academy

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