NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
ReadyNAS 214 Slow Transfer Speeds (Over Network and Direct-Connect)
I just purchased a ReadyNAS 214. I followed the quick start guide: installed two Seagate Ironwolf 3TB hard drives, connected Ethernet and power cable, powered on the unit, and went to http://read...
jak0lantash wrote:
Unless the issue is that its NIC behave properly in FastEthernet but not in GigabitEthernet, which would be weird, but I guess possible.
That is exactly what's happening, the data is quite clear. The only question is what component is misbehaving - the cable(s), the tower PC NIC or the RN214 NIC. It looks to me that the odds favor the problem being with the RN214 NIC, but it would be good to definitively rule out the other two before trying to convince support to do an RMA.
jak0lantash wrote: That seems unlikely as the ethernet port of the NAS do show 1Gbps in the logs.
Gigabit is negotiated over cat-5 with no problem, so that is not relevant. If there is a connection problem with some of the twisted pairs in any grade of cable, then sometimes fast ethernet is negotiated. In other cases, gigabit is negotiated, but you end up with no data transfer at all in one direction or the other. So several outcomes exist there, it depends on the details of the cable problem.
A duplex mismatch also might be occuring, though that is pretty rare with current ethernet chips. I guess Auto MID-X could be misbehaving too, but I've never seen that one, and the direct connection behaves the same as the router connection.
With CAT-5, the twisted pairs don't have as many twists per inch, which results in the shorter pulses used by gigabit being smeared out at the receiver. It can also increase the cross-talk between the pairs. Gigabit is supposed to work anyway, but CAT-5e or better is more reliable.
StephenB wrote:
jak0lantash wrote:Unless the issue is that its NIC behave properly in FastEthernet but not in GigabitEthernet, which would be weird, but I guess possible.
That is exactly what's happening, the data is quite clear. The only question is what component is misbehaving - the cable(s), the tower PC NIC or the RN214 NIC. It looks to me that the odds favor the problem being with the RN214 NIC, but it would be good to definitively rule out the other two before trying to convince support to do an RMA.
Are you thinking about dead/defective/loose pins in the RJ45 connector of the RN214? Defective chip maybe... The behavior is weird enough to suggest a low level issue.
Do you have the same behavior regardless of which port you use on the NAS?
Do you confirm that you did a Factory Default after updating the F/W to 6.6.1? (To exclude corrupt image on the flash)
jak0lantash wrote:
Are you thinking about dead/defective/loose pins in the RJ45 connector of the RN214? Defective chip maybe... The behavior is weird enough to suggest a low level issue.
Certainly it looks like layer one. A NIC failure or internal connection to the socket perhaps. Something about the cables, conceivably. Something in the connector seating is possible too, especially if the retaining clips on the plugs are broken off.
The lack of errored packets in the log doesn't fit that, though I don't think TCP retransmissions will show up in network_settings.log.
StephenB wrote:
The lack of errored packets in the log doesn't fit that, though I don't think TCP retransmissions will show up in network_settings.log.Maybe testing UDP and TCP throughput and packet loss separately with iperf would help.
Although I'd expect packet loss to give more inconsistent results than 4Mbps everytime Gigabit is used.
jak0lantash wrote:
Maybe testing UDP and TCP throughput and packet loss separately with iperf would help.I thought of that, but the OP would need to install it on the NAS with ssh, and also on Windows.
Did the exact thing mentioned earlier; changed the Tower's NIC to 100 Mbps Full Duplex, checked the NAS and confirmed eth1 "Bandwidth" at 100 Mbps.
I tried the direct connection with both ethernet cable #1 and #2 (i.e. CAT 5e patch cables). Transfer speeds were still around 4 Mbps.
davidnvisuals wrote:
Did the exact thing mentioned earlier; changed the Tower's NIC to 100 Mbps Full Duplex, checked the NAS and confirmed eth1 "Bandwidth" at 100 Mbps.
I tried the direct connection with both ethernet cable #1 and #2 (i.e. CAT 5e patch cables). Transfer speeds were still around 4 Mbps.
If you are the original purchaser, then I think it's time to contact Netgear Support (my.netgear.com) and ask for an RMA.
Connected the Cisco E4200 v2 router and Tower with the CAT 6 cable.
Used my sister's laptop on an 802.11n (300 Mbps bonded) connection, pushed a 1.7 GB file to the Tower, and saw 21-22 MB/sec transfer speed.
Used the Tower on that CAT 6 Ethernet cable, pushed a 1.6 GB file to the Laptop, and saw 4 Mbit/sec transfer speed.
Connected the E4200 v2 router and NAS with the CAT 6 cable.
Used my sister's laptop on an 802.11n (300 Mbps bonded) connection, pushed a 1.7 GB file to the NAS, and saw 21-22 MB/sec transfer speed.
Used the Tower on an 802.11n (216 Mbps bonded) connection, pushed a 1.6 GB file to the NAS, and saw 4 Mbit/sec transfer speed.
Created a share on the Tower, a backup job on the NAS, started the backup/transfer of a 1.6 GB file, and Windows Task manager is showing the Wi-Fi adapter is sending data at 4.8 to 5 Mbit/sec.
Connected the Cisco E4200 v2 router and Tower NIC with the CAT 6 cable. Connected the Cisco E4200 v2 router and NAS with the Netgear CAT 5e cable.
Used the Tower on an 1 Gbps Ethernet connection, pushed a 1.6 GB file to the NAS, and saw it fluctuate from 0 Bytes/sec to 2.0 MB/sec transfer speed.
Created a share on the Tower, a backup job on the NAS, started the backup/transfer of a 1.6 GB file, and Windows Task manager is showing the Wi-Fi adapter is sending data at 4.8 to 5 Mbit/sec.
Any suggestions on where to start looking within the Tower setup?
GA-Z170X-Gaming 3 (using the onboard NIC which is the Killer E2200).
Killer E2200 driver version 9.0.0.43 / driver date 2017-03-09.
Windows 10 Home.
Improperly configured jumbo frames, maybe?
I have a DuoV2 that won't properly negotiate gigabit because of a hardware issue, but it reports that it's only connected as fast ethernet, and the NIC LEDs also so indicate. So this sounds different, though the 214 may use a different Ethernet chip that behaves differently.
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!
