TS-110 Writing Slow

[Roman78]

Hello everybody. I'm new to this Forum, got myself a used TS-110 for 17 euros. After configuring i did some testing and was disappointed about the write speed of the NAS. The NAS should replace a USB 2 Harddisk on a FritzBox. But I think something is not right, so i did some speedtests.

The First picture is from the FritzBox, as you see a write speed of 31 mbps. The second picture is the TS-110 whit a write speed of almost 12 mbps. The read speed is much faster, but what is wrong whit the write speed?

Bildschirmfoto 2017-07-23 um 06.56.48.png

Bildschirmfoto 2017-07-23 um 07.17.29.png

For testing I installed a used 80 GB harddisk. Installed on my Laptop is OSX 10.7.5 and i also made a SMB as AFP connection whit almost the same results.

Could be some service/deamon on the NAS slow the write speed down? For this moment i will only use it for data storage, no other service is needed. It has no connection to the Internet, only need local storage. Formatted is the harddisk as EXT4. Don't know what more information could be needed?

[dolbyman]

what is the cpu usage on the nas during transfer?

the 110 is pretty low performance

[Roman78]

Thanks for the reply. CPU usage while coping 100 Meg is between 15 and 40%, memory is 59%.

Bildschirmfoto 2017-07-23 um 09.26.37.png

Bildschirmfoto 2017-07-23 um 09.26.27.png

Low performance is no problem, as long as it is not significant slower as the FritzBox. And at this moment it is.

[dolbyman]

fritzbox might have a 10 year "younger" cpu in it

are jumbo frames active?

[Roman78]

I think it's not 10 Years. When my google skills are not that bad, than the TS-110 is from 2009, and the FritzBox 7360 from 2012.

Jumbo Frames (MTU) = 1500
Connection speed is 1 Gbit.

[dolbyman]

ok 8 years then ...pretty old for (basically) a cell phone processor

what firmware is running ?

[Roman78]

Yeah, but the FritzBox is also 5 years old.

Firmware is the 4.2.6 (2017/06/28)

[P3R]

For testing I installed a used 80 GB harddisk.

80 GB sound ancient as well. Could it be that the disk is very slow writing (maybe have several reallocated sectors or even other faults)?

Maybe you have a modern USB3 disk connected to the router?

I can't find the specifications for TS-110 so I'm not sure if it have dual network connections but you only have a single network cable connected have you?

And you have both the NAS and client directly cable connected to the FritzBox?

[Roman78]

80 GB sound ancient as well. Could it be that the disk is very slow writing (maybe have several reallocated sectors or even other faults)?

Yes it is ancient too, ripped it out of an old defect iMac G5. But it is in working order. As noticed, it is only for testing and setting up the network. I planned to build a Second network behind a hardware Firewall/Router for more security. So i need a new NAS in that VLAN. Later there will be a 2 GB 2.5" harddisk in the NAS, 2.5" because less power and less heat.

Maybe you have a modern USB3 disk connected to the router?

The FritzBox is from 2012 and does not have USB 3. The harddisk it self is USB 3. If the FritzBox were new, the 2017 model, it would not surprise me. But there only three years between those two.

I can't find the specifications for TS-110 so I'm not sure if it have dual network connections but you only have a single network cable connected have you?

It only has one RJ45 connector, connected at 1gbit speed.

And you have both the NAS and client directly cable connected to the FritzBox?

Both are connected to the 1 GBit ports of the FritzBox. The 7630 only has two 1 GBits ports, the other two are only 10/100mbit

But also for such "ancient" device, I would suspect a little higher speed, like 30 to 40, not 10 to 12. Could i format the harddisk into EXT3 or EXT2? On the FritzBox Ext2 is a little bit faster. Could be the missing of Journaling.

[P3R]

Yes it is ancient too, ripped it out of an old defect iMac G5. But it is in working order.

To confirm that, could you please run the SMART tests on it and then show us the SMART Information data?

The FritzBox is from 2012 and does not have USB 3. The harddisk it self is USB 3. If the FritzBox were new, the 2017 model, it would not surprise me. But there only three years between those two.

They are totally different products so please let's forget about that comparison now. Instead we should concentrate on finding out what is wrong with your NAS connection.

But also for such "ancient" device, I would suspect a little higher speed, like 30 to 40, not 10 to 12.

Actually I would expect it to be well above 100 Mbits/sec and that's the reason I try to come up with ideas to help you figure out what's wrong in your setup.

Could i format the harddisk into EXT3 or EXT2?

Ext3 used to be supported. I switched to Ext4 many, many years ago and have never looked back so I wouldn't know if it's still supported in current versions of QTS. I would think that your issue is much more severe than any marginal performance difference between Ext3 and Ext4.

Again to confirm, the client is connected with a network cable?

Have you tried simply copying a large file back and forth? What speeds does that give you?

[Roman78]

Thanks.

Smart Test is coming up tonight (not at home atm).

Both are connected whit a Cat5e cable on the Gigabits ports of the FritzBox. And both are running at 1Gbit. But i will test it whit some other gigabit switch and other better cables.

Copying lager files are not faster or slower. But i can make some more tests. The test file from the pictures above is 50 Meg.

[P3R]

Smart Test is coming up tonight (not at home atm).

Both are connected whit a Cat5e cable on the Gigabits ports of the FritzBox. And both are running at 1Gbit. But i will test it whit some other gigabit switch and other better cables.

Good.

Copying lager files are not faster or slower.

Multiple small files copied together will always copy slower than a large file. As a large file copy is comparable with what other people see at other places that's what's the recommended benchmark test.

The test file from the pictures above is 50 Meg.

Yes but that looks to be some kind of test application, that we can't be absolutely sure what and how it does it's copy. I recommend a normal file copy with whatever is used on a Mac to do that, more like the way the client is normally used.

[Roman78]

I'll make some test whit some different file size and post the results here.

[P3R]

I'll make some test whit some different file size and post the results here.

Keep it simple. A single file, large enough for the copy to take at least 15 seconds, but 30 or more seconds would be even better, is enough for the basic testing we need here. Different file sizes may be relevant when tuning buffers, playing with larger frames and so on but now you only need to find out what's wrong in your setup.

[gggplaya]

ARM NAS units from that era were slow. Shouldn't expect to max out a gigabit connection. My readynas i purchased in 2009 maxed out at about 30MB/s.(Megabytes)

But what's you're getting is really slow, something is wrong. I know other people have had issues with Fritzbox and their NAS. Perhaps take your NAS to a friends house and try it on their router. That would be a quick process of elimination and narrow down the culprit.