Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

New Hard Drive is Copying files OVER NETWORK slow!

Last response: in Storage
Share
a c 99 G Storage
March 25, 2011 5:07:25 PM

We got off topic here, so I’m opening a new thread, for a different question.

While copied all the data/media over a home network, the copy speeds are very low. They are roughly 20MBps, when they should be around 100-150MBps.

Yes, I know that even though they are SATA II 3.0Gbps drives, they don’t even get close to the SATA bandwidth. The best benchmark I’ve had is 150MBps with 2-500GB HDD in RAID 0, but this is for reads. I can’t remember what the writes were, but very close. At least 100MBps.

The drives were new, clean installed, partitioned, and formatted in Windows 7. Only 1 partition on each new array.

I originally had 1 RAID 0 array, now I have 3:

Array 0: 2 x Intel X25-M 40GB SSD = 80GB C Drive: Boot Disk/Programs
Array 1: 2 x Samsung SpinPoint F3 1TB = 2TB D Drive: Data & Media
Array 3: 2 x Samsung SpinPoint F4 2TB = 4TB* E Drive: Back Up & Storage

*To get over the 2TB limit in Windows (and BIOS won't let me boot to it anyway, as if), the drive was set to GPT, not MBR, upon Windows recognizing the drive in Disk Management.

If you want to know what GPT is, Google "GUI Partition Table." MBR has a 2.19 TB size limit (2.19 × 10^12 bytes). GPT have a 9.4 ZB limit (9.4 x 10^21 bytes). YES, Zeta-byte = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or a thousand million million bytes, or 1 billion terabytes.

My home network uses Gigabit LAN Adapters in both rigs, up to date drivers. These are networked through a D-Link DIR-555 Xtreme N Gigabit Wireless Router (to a Comcast’s Cable modem). No problems downloading web pages, and such. I don’ think this is the problem.

My motherboard drivers are Intel RST v9.6, as I haven’t reinstalled iRST v10.1 yet for my X58/ICH10R chipset yet. I don’ think this is the problem either.

The information is being copied to these new drives.

I haven’t run benchmark on the new drives and the RAID arrays, I’m just letting it copy. Earlier, it copied 292GB of info, taking almost 5 hours (4:55), while I slept. Right now it’s copying my backups (almost 1TB of info?), and it stated it’ll take over 14 hours, when I left for work.

It’s not MBR vs. GPT, as I’ve copied slow to both arrays (2TB & 4TB).

The arrays stripe size is 128K. I’ve worked with RAID arrays before. I benched 2-500GB drives, and got over 140MBps reads, and 110MBps writes.

Drives? Network? Any Tweaks? No problems before I install the new hard drives.

Best solution

a c 415 G Storage
March 25, 2011 9:04:18 PM

If when you say "They are roughly 20MBps, when they should be around 100-150MBps" you are using "MBps" to mean "Mega BYTES per second", then you're NEVER going to see 150MBytes/sec over a gigabit network because it only runs at a theoretical maximum speed of 100MBytes/sec. Real-world speeds can be lower due to packetizing, latency and congestion issues.

Saying that the network downloads web pages OK means absolutely nothing since your ISP connection is probably well under 1MByte/sec, which doesn't offer your internal network any challenge at all.
Share
a c 99 G Storage
March 26, 2011 8:30:08 AM

Ah, yes: The bit vs byte delema. 8 bits = 1 byte....

Gigabit network = 125MB per second (roughly?), and with network packaging, hence the slower speed than when copying from drive to direct drive in same rig.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 99 G Storage
March 26, 2011 8:30:17 AM

Best answer selected by foscooter.
Score
0
a c 415 G Storage
March 26, 2011 6:44:12 PM

foscooter said:
Gigabit network = 125MB per second (roughly?), and with network packaging, hence the slower speed than when copying from drive to direct drive in same rig.
I've found that in almost all cases you can divide the bits/second speed by 10 in order to get the bytes/second transfer rate for the data. This is because all protocols have overhead. I doubt you'd ever be able to get as fast as 100MByte/sec on a gigabit network except under highly idealized conditions.

Here's some info on protocol overhead, including TCP/IP over Ethernet: http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/net/overhead/
Note that this does not include the overhead of the SMB protocol used to service disks remotely.
Score
0
a c 99 G Storage
March 26, 2011 8:54:01 PM

thanks sminlal. Good to see you're still around. Whatda ya think about the new Intel 510 SSD's? Too bad ther so $$ (120Gb for $289.00).
Score
0
a c 415 G Storage
March 26, 2011 9:35:22 PM

The fact that Intel's using a third-party controller is a negative for me. One of the reasons I bought an Intel SSD was because I had a high degree of confidence in their controller and firmware. Anand's review showed that confidence was probably justified based on SSD returns to a Frech e-tailer - the Intel drives had a return rate only about 1/4 or less than that of other SSDs.

The problem with SSDs is that the only way to lower costs is to use smaller-scale lithography that creates tinier memory cells - and with flash technology that causes other problems (reduced retention times, slower write rates. etc.). That forces the controller to go through more hoops in order to maintain performance, and more hoops = more complexity and more chances for weird, unexpected glitches.

I'm really happy with my X-25M G2 drive and if I was buying another SSD right now I'd likely try to find another one. But then I'm probably atypical - I'm less price- and performance-sensitive and more interested in robustness and reliability (the fact that I have ECC memory in my desktop system is a good indication of that). I see the X25M G2 drives as time-tested, solid, products that you can really depend on.
Score
0
March 27, 2011 11:24:04 AM

As requested
Score
0
!