NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Struggling With Low Speeds < 15MBps Over Gigabit
Hey Guys
I have been having a major PITA regarding transfer speeds ever since I purchased my 'ReadyNas Ultra 4 Plus' in May 2011.
Originally, I was only getting approx 5-6 MB/second and came to the conclusion that it was probably due to using 'Netgear Homeplugs', which apparently didn't support jumbo frames even though they were the 500MBps version .
I also discovered that the integrated Broadcom network adapter within my 'Dell XPS8300' didn't support jumbo frames either, despite that being Gigabit. :shock:
Requiring faster transfer speeds, I ditched the 'Netgear Homeplugs' and invested in an 'Intel Gigabit CT' network adapter as well as a TP-Link TL-SG1005D5 5-port unmanaged Gigabit switch.
This increased the speed to approx 10-12 MB/second and I've put up with that for a while now.
However after recently reading a webpage, 'Bott's Thoughts' dated 2010, I was disappointed to read that I should be expecting around 80 MB/second :shock: .
So I want to try and get to the bottom of this poor network performance once and for all.
Current set up consists of:
'ReadyNas Ultra 4 Plus'
RAIDiator 4.2.23 (v4.2.24 Available)
4 x 2TB SAMSUNG HD204UI - 5400RPM - RAID-5
4GB DDR2 Memory Upgrade
Auto Negotiation @ 1Gbit/Full Duplex
Jumbo Frames/Packets Enabled
IPv6 Disabled
Main PC
'DELL XPS8300'
Intel i7-2600 CPU @ 3.4GHz
Window 7 64-bit
2 x 1TB Western Digital WD10EALX - 7200RPM RAID-0
16GB DDR3
Disabled Onboard Broadcom Gigabit Network Adapter (No Jumbo Frame/Packet Support)
Intel Gigabit CT Network Adapter
Auto Negotiation @ 1Gbit/Full Duplex
Jumbo Frames/Packets Enabled = 9014
IPv6 Disabled
Router/Switch
Billion BiPAC 7800N
Firmware 1.06h
4 x Gigabit Ports
Jumbo Frames Enable by Default (Apparently)
DHCP Server
IPv6 Disabled
Unmanaged Switch
TP-Link - TL-SG1005D
5 x Auto-Negotiation Gigabit Ports
Belkin CAT5e Cables / All Tested
Currently, the ''Dell XPS8300' PC is connected directly to the 'Billion 7800N' router/switch (both upstairs), which is then connected to the unmanaged switch downstairs via CAT5e cable.
The switch is then connected to:
'ReadyNas Ultra 4 Plus'
MEDE8ER Multimedia Streamer
'SKY HD' Receiver
XBOX360 Slim
Samsung BD-C5900 3D Bluray Player
For test purposes:
I copied a 3.2GB file from the 'ReadyNAS' to the 'Dell XPS8300' and the average Windows reported read speed was approx 100MBps
I copied the same file back and the average Windows reported write speed was 11MB/second. :?
Moved the same file from the 'ReadyNAS' to the 'Dell XPS8300' and the average Windows reported read speed was approx 120MBps
Moved the same file back and the average Windows reported write speed was 10MB/second. :shock:
Done the same with a 'HP 8000 Elite USDT', which is also Gigabit and the results were similar.
The results from a utility called 'LAN Speed Test' (3GB test file to the same folder) show the following:
Average Read Speed: 29MB/second
Average Write Speed: 18MB/second
Surely the write speed to the 'ReadyNAS' should be better than 10-12MB/second?
The only thing I haven't tried is a direct cable connection between the 'Dell XPS8300' and the 'ReadyNAS' as I don't have a cable long enough as present.
Going to order a Belkin 20m CAT5e or CAT6 cable now and see if that improves speeds any.
Is there anything obvious I've missed?
Looking at the above, I'm now wondering whether the difference in drive speeds between the 'Dell XPS8300' and the 'ReadyNAS' is causing this.
If so, would the expected transfer rate be affected that much or is it more likely to be an external hardware or even a software/driver problem?
Any ideas welcome.
Oh, and if you got this far without losing the will to live, then well done! You deserve a medal! :D
I have been having a major PITA regarding transfer speeds ever since I purchased my 'ReadyNas Ultra 4 Plus' in May 2011.
Originally, I was only getting approx 5-6 MB/second and came to the conclusion that it was probably due to using 'Netgear Homeplugs', which apparently didn't support jumbo frames even though they were the 500MBps version .
I also discovered that the integrated Broadcom network adapter within my 'Dell XPS8300' didn't support jumbo frames either, despite that being Gigabit. :shock:
Requiring faster transfer speeds, I ditched the 'Netgear Homeplugs' and invested in an 'Intel Gigabit CT' network adapter as well as a TP-Link TL-SG1005D5 5-port unmanaged Gigabit switch.
This increased the speed to approx 10-12 MB/second and I've put up with that for a while now.
However after recently reading a webpage, 'Bott's Thoughts' dated 2010, I was disappointed to read that I should be expecting around 80 MB/second :shock: .
So I want to try and get to the bottom of this poor network performance once and for all.
Current set up consists of:
'ReadyNas Ultra 4 Plus'
RAIDiator 4.2.23 (v4.2.24 Available)
4 x 2TB SAMSUNG HD204UI - 5400RPM - RAID-5
4GB DDR2 Memory Upgrade
Auto Negotiation @ 1Gbit/Full Duplex
Jumbo Frames/Packets Enabled
IPv6 Disabled
Main PC
'DELL XPS8300'
Intel i7-2600 CPU @ 3.4GHz
Window 7 64-bit
2 x 1TB Western Digital WD10EALX - 7200RPM RAID-0
16GB DDR3
Disabled Onboard Broadcom Gigabit Network Adapter (No Jumbo Frame/Packet Support)
Intel Gigabit CT Network Adapter
Auto Negotiation @ 1Gbit/Full Duplex
Jumbo Frames/Packets Enabled = 9014
IPv6 Disabled
Router/Switch
Billion BiPAC 7800N
Firmware 1.06h
4 x Gigabit Ports
Jumbo Frames Enable by Default (Apparently)
DHCP Server
IPv6 Disabled
Unmanaged Switch
TP-Link - TL-SG1005D
5 x Auto-Negotiation Gigabit Ports
Belkin CAT5e Cables / All Tested
Currently, the ''Dell XPS8300' PC is connected directly to the 'Billion 7800N' router/switch (both upstairs), which is then connected to the unmanaged switch downstairs via CAT5e cable.
The switch is then connected to:
'ReadyNas Ultra 4 Plus'
MEDE8ER Multimedia Streamer
'SKY HD' Receiver
XBOX360 Slim
Samsung BD-C5900 3D Bluray Player
For test purposes:
I copied a 3.2GB file from the 'ReadyNAS' to the 'Dell XPS8300' and the average Windows reported read speed was approx 100MBps
I copied the same file back and the average Windows reported write speed was 11MB/second. :?
Moved the same file from the 'ReadyNAS' to the 'Dell XPS8300' and the average Windows reported read speed was approx 120MBps
Moved the same file back and the average Windows reported write speed was 10MB/second. :shock:
Done the same with a 'HP 8000 Elite USDT', which is also Gigabit and the results were similar.
The results from a utility called 'LAN Speed Test' (3GB test file to the same folder) show the following:
Average Read Speed: 29MB/second
Average Write Speed: 18MB/second
Surely the write speed to the 'ReadyNAS' should be better than 10-12MB/second?
The only thing I haven't tried is a direct cable connection between the 'Dell XPS8300' and the 'ReadyNAS' as I don't have a cable long enough as present.
Going to order a Belkin 20m CAT5e or CAT6 cable now and see if that improves speeds any.
Is there anything obvious I've missed?
Looking at the above, I'm now wondering whether the difference in drive speeds between the 'Dell XPS8300' and the 'ReadyNAS' is causing this.
If so, would the expected transfer rate be affected that much or is it more likely to be an external hardware or even a software/driver problem?
Any ideas welcome.
Oh, and if you got this far without losing the will to live, then well done! You deserve a medal! :D
36 Replies
Replies have been turned off for this discussion
- Well, after plenty of faffing about setting up FileZilla to connect to the ReadyNAS, I managed to get read/write access to the Home folder.
Copied the same 3.05GB MKV to and from the ReadyNAS via FTP and that wasn't much better:
WRITING TO READYNAS
Dragging and dropping from Desktop to the 'Home' folder took approximately 1'50" which is 29.78MB/sec IMCIC*.
READING FROM READYNAS
Dragging and dropping from the 'Home' folder back to the Desktop took approximately 29 seconds, which is 112MB/sec IMCIC*.
Both of the above were done with Jumbo Frames disabled.
I even installed the 'ReadyNAS Remote' and tried that, but that was even worse.
Wrong application to be fair, but I just wanted to see how it performed (Read: <10MB/sec)
Just tried that PING command again and despite all the changes I've made, it's still won't ping anything over 1449.
Enter 1450 and it still throws up:
Pinging 192.168.1.2 with 1450 bytes of data:
Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set.
*IMCIC = If My Calculation IS Correct - Jumbo frames clearly aren't working on your connection (even the standard 1500 byte frame size is not working) . There is no point in testing them unless we can fix that. I suggest you give up on them for now, as you have a more basic performance problem with NAS writes that you need to figure out.
Also, the LAN test results appear to be wrong, since your drag-and-drop measurement is 3x faster. Try the NAStester and let us know what it reports in both directions.
Can you check the NAS network stats, and see if you are getting transmission errors when writing to the NAS? This is via Frontview\network\interfaces. Click on "show errors before the test, and save the result. Click again after the test so we can see if anything bad is happening during the test.
I also strongly recommend re-enabling the broadcom NIC, and seeing how the speed compares. Also, try the ping test with the broadcom and see if you can get 1460 working with that. StephenB wrote: I suggest you give up on them for now
Yeah, I'm thinking that may be a good idea.StephenB wrote: Also, the LAN test results appear to be wrong, since your drag-and-drop measurement is 3x faster.
Yeah, that does seems strange. I wouldn't mind, but I paid for that program too. :(StephenB wrote: Try the NAStester and let us know what it reports in both directions.
Well, I've just ran 'NASTester' on a 'Mapped Drive' and the results were as follows:
ReadyNAS:
Jumbo Frames: OFF
MTU: 1500
Test1:
Default 400mb File (5 x Loops):
Write Average: 26.9 MB/sec
Read Average: 102.9 MB/sec
Achievement unlocked: 100MB+/sec read speed! :thumbsup:
Test 2:
4000mb File (2 Loops)
Write Average: 25.6 MB/sec
Read Average: 90.9 MB/secStephenB wrote: Can you check the NAS network stats, and see if you are getting transmission errors when writing to the NAS?
Not sure if this is normal, but the 'TX Packets' & 'RX Packets' are increasing steadily when the ReadyNAS is idle and NOTHING is being transferred!
For instance, I clicked the 'Show Errors' button as you suggested and after a timed 60 second period, I clicked the button again and both Tx & Rx figures had increased:
TX Packets: 70
RX Packets: 152
Normal?
Anyway, I did as you said and recorded the before & after network errors either side of the 4000mb file transfer mentioned above.
Strangely though, the write phase was pretty quick, but the read phase, which is usually quicker, took absolutely ages (time wise), but the reported transfer speed was similar to other tests run earlier .
The results of the network errors is as follows:
StephenB wrote: I also strongly recommend re-enabling the broadcom NIC, and seeing how the speed compares. Also, try the ping test with the broadcom and see if you can get 1460 working with that.
I'll have to do this tomorrow.
Just a thought, but would having a 'Wake on Lan' option set up on my router cause any problems?
Thanks again for the pointers. Learning summat everyday! :D- Interesting enough, there aren't a lot of errors in your screen shots. The "tx packets" and "rx packets" fields are packet counts (e.g., error free). You have 2 rx dropped.
Average packet size is quite small < 400 bytes. (~4 000 000 000 / 10 000 000).
Wake on Lan shouldn't be causing any issues. StephenB wrote: Interesting enough, there aren't a lot of errors in your screen shots. The "tx packets" and "rx packets" fields are packet counts (e.g., error free). You have 2 rx dropped.
Average packet size is quite small < 400 bytes. (~4 000 000 000 / 10 000 000).
Wake on Lan shouldn't be causing any issues.
Good to hear about the WOL.
But is there any other services that may be running either PC or ReadyNAS side that may be causing a conflict and as a result slowing things down?
DLNA pehaps?
Any ideas why the packet size is so small?
Sorry for all the questions, but I'm sure I can get better performance out of this set-up.
As much as I would hate to do it, I may even consider a full OS re-install, which will take days to set up the way I have it ATM.
Haven't had time to test anything today, such a s the pinging with the Broadcom NIC, but I'll try that tomorrow before I'm away for a few days.
Thanks again for your advice StephenB, it's been really helpful so far.- When I did a transfer from the PC to my Pro, I got an average packet size in the NAS RX packets of ~1450 bytes. Since I am using the normal ethernet MTU, that is what I expected. There were packets in the TX direction as well (acknowledgements) that were small. I didn't track the number of them.
Since you are not able to run standard 1500 byte ethernet packets, I'd expect to see every data packet fragmented into 2. So the average size would be ~750 bytes, though in reality each packet is getting split into a large one and a small one. Those fragments have to be reassembled on the receiver, which is one reason for your lower performance. My guess is that the NAS is detecting the packet size ceiling - that would explain why reads are so much faster than the writes. However, that is just a guess right now.
In your test you transferred the file in both directions, and reported the summed result. If you get a chance, it would help if you test again, and report the read and write tests stats separately.
Testing with the broadcom part is also an important next step.
There is no real point in rebuilding the NAS - as far as I can see there is nothing wrong with it. You'd be better off completing the network tests, so we can figure out how to fix that first. You absolutely should be able to send 1500 byte packets on your local ethernet.
After we get that sorted, we should be able to tell where we are with the NAS. - Are you using the latest driver for the NIC?
Most if the time the driver supplied on the disk that comes with the hardware is very old.
It looks like there was a new version released on August 6th.
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Product_Filter.aspx?ProductID=3025 StephenB wrote: Testing with the broadcom part is also an important next step.
So, I disabled the Intel NIC and re-enable the Broadcom NIC
I'll add my network speed tests findings using the Broadcom NIC as I go, but so far the ping result was
C:\Users\XPS-8300>ping 192.168.1.2 -f -l 1403
Pinging 192.168.1.2 with 1403 bytes of data:
Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set. x3
Ping statistics for 192.168.1.2:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
C:\Users\XPS-8300>ping 192.168.1.2 -f -l 1402
Pinging 192.168.1.2 with 1402 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.2: bytes=1402 time<1ms TTL=64 x4
Ping statistics for 192.168.1.2:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms
As you can see, the pinging up to 1402 was was OK, but I got the 'Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set' message when I went above that figure.fbmachines wrote: Are you using the latest driver for the NIC?
In reply to your query fbmachines, here is the current staus of both the Intel and Broadcom drivers:
Broadcom Netlink (TM) Gigabit Ethernet:
Driver Provider: Broadcom
Driver Version: 15.6.0.2
Driver Date: 15/10/2012
(Broadcom Website Driver Date Show Different Date: 06/04/13 )
Intel(R) Gigabit CT Desktop Adapter
Driver Provider: Intel
Driver Version: 12.7.27.0
Driver Date: 16/05/2013
The installed driver, version: 12.7.27.0 is current according to “Intel® Driver Update Utility”, despite the Intel centre showing v18.5 as being the latest driver.
Even when the v18.5is installed, the adapter properties still show v12.7.27.0.
Is there any way to ‘purge’ all previous network driver remnants and start over?StephenB wrote: If you get a chance, it would help if you test again, and report the read and write tests stats separately.
I knew that table was confusing.:hammer:
The read and write results were separate.
However, that table was complicated to read and I struggled to show the data in a clear and easy to understand manner.
Blue columns: Read
Red Columns: Write
I've actually went back and changed the image in the earlier post and done away with the 'LAN Speed Test' results as they were way off the mark for some reason.
Anyway, here's the data in text only.
Average READ Speed - Jumbo Frames: ON:
NAS > PC: 111 MB/sec
NAS > Switch > PC: 96.6 MB/sec
NAS > Switch > Router > PC: 109 MB/sec
Average READ Speed - Jumbo Frames: OFF:
NAS > PC: 98.9 MB/sec
NAS > Switch > PC: 91.9 MB/sec
NAS > Switch > Router > PC: 103MB/sec
Average WRITE Speed - Jumbo Frames: ON:
PC > NAS: 12.1 MB/sec
PC > Switch > NAS: 11.7 MB/sec
PC > Router > Switch > NAS: 12.0 MB/sec
Average WRITE Speed - Jumbo Frames: OFF:
PC > NAS: 30.2 MB/sec
PC > Switch > NAS: 23.5 MB/sec
PC > Router > Switch > NAS: 19.4 MB/sec
Still not sure if that's any clearer tho'. :lol:StephenB wrote: There is no real point in rebuilding the NAS
I was actually on about my PC and reinstalling it from the ground up, sorry for the confusion.
NETGEAR Academy
Boost your skills with the Netgear Academy - Get trained, certified and stay ahead with the latest Netgear technology!
Join Us!
