What LAN transfer speeds should I be getting?

[Mashly]

Hi there, I am a beginner at this stuff so please be gentle.

I have just got my first box working and made a CIFS share with my Laptop over a BT-HUB3. The NAS box is connected using a cable and the laptop is using wi-fi.

I know the wi-fi will slow the whole thing down but it is only uploading at ~ 4 too 5 MB/s. This seems a little bit slow to me.

If so can people give me some tips on looking for the problem?

My NAS box is a
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor
Gigabyte GA-MA785GT-UD3H
5604MB of Hyper-X RAM (I thought this PC had more)
3 * 2TB Seagate ST2000DM001

I hope this is enough but if not let me know and I will find it and add on to the post.

Thanks in advance,

Matt

 

[pirateghost]

based on the specs of that motherboard:

LAN: Realtek 8111C chip (10/100/1000 Mbit)

There is your first bottleneck.

Your second bottleneck is going to be RAM on the server. ZFS needs RAM to cache transactions.

The third issue is wireless. There are so many variables that can affect your WiFi transfers that we couldn't possibly get into all of the scenarios here. Suffice it to say, over wireless, those speeds are not terrible.

Test over wired connections using iperf
Test over wifi connection using iperf

This will give you a basis for your network.


**EDIT**
According to the specs on your router, only one port is gigabit. Port 4. Everything else will limit you to 100mbps it appears. Your router might be at fault here.

 

[Mashly]

Excellent thank you for your reply. Does look like there are some issues here with my setup, I am just testing at the moment with an old PC.

I will do some testing and get back to you with some results.

 

[Mashly]

So I have connected both computers with a wire and I am now getting a transfer speed of ~11 MB/s. So its about doubled already.

The next thing I am doing is upgrading to a BT HH5 that has all 1Gb/s ports. It should be arriving on Tuesday so I will report back then.

I am guessing I should upgrade the PC to a PCI-e type card. Does anyone have any suggestions on cheap'ish cards that will do a half decent job?

Thanks

 

[gpsguy]

The Intel Pro/1000 CT is the goto card for this situation. Here's a link to one - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-EXPI9...d=1447594284&sr=8-1&keywords=intel+pro+100+ct

 

[jgreco]

The Intel Pro/1000 CT is the goto card for this situation. Here's a link to one - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-EXPI9...d=1447594284&sr=8-1&keywords=intel+pro+100+ct

If you're just testing with an old PC, that's fine, don't bother with the Intel card. When you DO get ready to get a NAS, make sure to get a quality board designed for server tasks and this won't be an issue. The Supermicro stuff we like to recommend is the best for this sort of thing.

 

[Ericloewe]

RTL8111C? That's a whole 9 letters crappier than the ever-popular RTL8111L.

 

[jgreco]

RTL8111C? That's a whole 9 letters crappier than the ever-popular RTL8111L.

Awesome, we're doing math on ASCII strings now?

 

[Ericloewe]

Awesome, we're doing math on ASCII strings now?

Sure makes life easier when strings are involved.:D

 

[Mashly]

Just got the router with 4 ports that should be 1Gb/s and it seems to transfer at ~85MB/s. Which I am a lot happier with (obviously still not perfect but without spending more).

It is also doing ~20 - 40 MB/s over WiFi now so also much better.

 

[jgreco]

85MB/sec works out to about 700Mbits/sec so that's not that great, but not totally useless.

 

[Mashly]

I am guessing that the bottle neck here is the rubbish Realtek network adapter? As the max for that is 1000Mbits/sec.

 

[jgreco]

No way in heck a Realtek will hit 1000Mbits/sec. The little hamster that moves bits around inside the chip will get tired very quickly.

 

[Mashly]

Yeah I think I will be getting that card pretty soon. :D

 

[jgreco]

You may be better off saving for a decent server board and other NAS-grade parts. Anything with a Realtek on it is likely dodgy in several other ways as well.

 

[Mashly]

That is true, but it did me well when I was using it for gaming about 5 years ago.

 

[jgreco]

Of course it did, but the things that make a good gaming machine and the things that make a good NAS platform are very different things. In fact, many of the things that make for a good gaming machine are actually bad for NAS.

 

[solarisguy]

That is true, but it did me well when I was using it for gaming about 5 years ago.

In addition to the above post...

With a game, when you crash, you are only building your resilience against adversities.

With NAS, when you crash, you are potentially loosing the most important data.

 

[Mashly]

Of course it did, but the things that make a good gaming machine and the things that make a good NAS platform are very different things. In fact, many of the things that make for a good gaming machine are actually bad for NAS.

That is very true. I am going to take your advise and learn on this machine (making sure I don't put anything to important on it). Then invest in some parts that are specific to the job.

 

[jgreco]

Or, think of it like a car. Yeah, you had this great sports car that you loved to zoom around in five years ago. But your NAS is much more of a truck. Trying to make a car into a truck is fraught with peril, whereas just building the truck correctly to start with works better. Real bumpers, a hitch, a great amount of hauling capacity, and an engine that won't give out the first time you rev the engine... just a few of the upsides of a real truck.