DSM-G600, DNS-3xx and NSA-220 Hack Forum

Grimham · 2008-02-01 06:12:38

I have an issue I'd like to figure out. When I want to watch a movie open a picture or even open a document that is located on my 323 it takes forever (I say forever but it's actually about a 5-10 second delay) before it starts to play the movie or open the picture or document. Even a 100k file takes 5 seconds or more to open. I am connected with a Dlink 10/100/1000 switch and am running at 1000 (my PC is gigabit as well). It doesn't make a difference if I put it at 100 I still get the same issue. Now if I FTP to the box then whatever I want to look at pops right up, it's just in Win XP SP2 with a mapped drive that the issue exists. Moving large files is no problem though, I get great throughput. It's like the 323 is caching what it is going to send first (a lot of network activity and then you get the file).

Anyway, TIA.

Oh, I'm running 1.03

Last edited by Grimham (2008-02-01 06:14:08)

fickle · 2008-02-01 07:00:03

maybe network issue? ip addressing / subnetting / routing?

sjmac · 2008-02-01 13:11:01

Disks having to spin up?

That's one of the benefits of standard/seperate disk mode - it takes seconds less time to get the first file after the disks spin up :-)

Grimham · 2008-02-02 07:18:41

It's not the disks spinning up or an ip/subnet/routing issue. If I had to guess it's more of a network translation problem or perhaps
it's just that my PC's NIC and the 323 don't play together nice. I've tried different drivers and setting but it stays the same. Like I said,
when I go to retrieve a file I see the network light blink like crazy on the 323 and then 5-10 seconds later I get what I was after. I can
live with it I guess. Like I said, I do get good throughput with large files - just moving and copying here and there.

Thanks for the replies.

mig · 2008-02-02 10:53:58

There is a free network analyzer called wireshark http://www.wireshark.org/
You could install this program on your host computer and capture the packets
between the DNS-323 and your host computer. This could help show you what
your network is trying to figure out before sending the data.

Last edited by mig (2008-02-02 10:54:34)

sjmac · 2008-02-02 11:43:56

Grimham wrote:
... Like I said, I do get good throughput with large files - just moving and copying here and there ...

Did you play with enabling Jumbo frames on your network? For best reliability that should almost certainly be switched OFF wherever you have the option (ie in the DNS323 - it defaults to off, your PC network card - probably defaults to off too).

Or have you been playing with MTU sizes?

If you haven't been playing with "jumbo frames" or MTU then don't bother looking at these settings, the defaults will be fine. But what you describe sounds like a symptom of mismatched MTU.

mihar · 2008-02-03 09:44:19

sjmac wrote:
Grimham wrote:
... Like I said, I do get good throughput with large files - just moving and copying here and there ...
Did you play with enabling Jumbo frames on your network? For best reliability that should almost certainly be switched OFF wherever you have the option (ie in the DNS323 - it defaults to off, your PC network card - probably defaults to off too).

Or have you been playing with MTU sizes?

If you haven't been playing with "jumbo frames" or MTU then don't bother looking at these settings, the defaults will be fine. But what you describe sounds like a symptom of mismatched MTU.

You mean there's an option to turn on jumbo frames on the 323?

fordem · 2008-02-03 13:53:07

mihar wrote:
You mean there's an option to turn on jumbo frames on the 323?

Not exactly - I'm not sure if it was offered in the web interface in one of the early firmware versions - but if it was, it's been removed. There is a way, however, to fiddle the MTU settings if you have telnet access through fun_plug.

http://dns323.kood.org/forum/t921-Jumbo … 21%21.html

Last edited by fordem (2008-02-03 14:23:48)

mihar · 2008-02-04 10:46:44

Awww crap... looked through the thread you linked to and was about to try meddling the settings but just remembered that my router, the dgl-4300 doesn't support jumbo frames... everything else i own on the network does support jumbo...

Turning the option to on on my nic simply causes the router to not respond... bleh.. maybe i'll get a new router...

fordem · 2008-02-04 17:55:24

Enabling jumbo frame on one device in a network which does not completely support jumbo frame should not cause it to "not respond" - I would expect perhaps decreased performance, but not a complete failure.

sjmac · 2008-02-04 19:27:43

fordem wrote:
Enabling jumbo frame on one device in a network which does not completely support jumbo frame should not cause it to "not respond" - I would expect perhaps decreased performance, but not a complete failure.

Well as the switch (level 2) doesn't support Jumbo frames in this case, they get dropped. Only routers (at level 3 of the network stack) will fragment packets or send ICMP replies, so what happens next depends on what the client chooses to do when nothing comes back after the connection request.

I think UDP and TCP have different behaviours too, and I'd expect any of a range of frustrating behaviours from lower performance or failed connections to slow initial connections depending on the protocol (tcp or udp) and the client and server OS network stacks.

This article (page 3 of 5 linked) discusses most of the issues: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/ … 01/54/1/2/ - it's a can o' worms!

fordem · 2008-02-04 21:10:55

sjmac

Thanks for that link - I'll do the reading a little later when I have some free time - for now, I'll just say, that's NOT been my experience when fooling around with jumbo frame.

So far I have not been able to see the advantages or disadvantages of jumbo frame, despite trying several combinations of ethernet cards and switches, and reducing the network to a single switch and two computers, all of which claimed to support jumbo frame and had it enabled.

sjmac · 2008-02-04 23:17:55

fordem, at the risk of taking the thread dangerously off-topic ...

I tried setting my MTU on the DNS323 to 7500, and on Windows Vista x64 enabled 9K Jumbo frames *and* set the MTU to 7500 and was then able to write files to the DNS323 at 21MB/sec. That is a good performance gain over 18MB/sec with the default settings. Unfortunately the GB ethernet on my other PC doesn't support Jumbo frames (performance was lower), and on the other side of two switches (one of which does not support jumbo frames) the server was invisible to my media streamers. (Although with UPnP devices, maybe that isn't unusual!)

The attached screen shot shows the effect on network utilization while I was changing the MTU on the DNS323 and Vista.

Grimam: If you don't think this is your problem then I think mig's suggestion to try wireshark is the best so far - I tried Wireshark once when it was called Ethereal and it is OK to use if your network doesn't have a lot of traffic on.

Run it on the same PC as the one you are having the slow access from, start capturing, attempt the connection, then stop capturing when the connection is finished. Wireshark might show you something interesting.

Also, could your 5-10 second waits be a problem looking up the name of your DNS323? What happens if you use the IP address, like
\\192.168.x.y\Volume_1 ?

Attachments:

jumbo-speeds-annotated.jpg, Size: 144,353 bytes, Downloads: 187

Grimham · 2008-02-05 02:14:57

sjmac wrote:
Grimam: If you don't think this is your problem then I think mig's suggestion to try wireshark is the best so far - I tried Wireshark once when it was called Ethereal and it is OK to use if your network doesn't have a lot of traffic on.

Run it on the same PC as the one you are having the slow access from, start capturing, attempt the connection, then stop capturing when the connection is finished. Wireshark might show you something interesting.

Also, could your 5-10 second waits be a problem looking up the name of your DNS323? What happens if you use the IP address, like
\\192.168.x.y\Volume_1 ?

Actually that's exactly what I use "\\192.168.1.150\Volume_1". I did use Wireshark and got some interesting results. If I remember correctly at first it kept saying -

"bad TCP checksum"

Anyway after some searching on the net I found that is a common occurance and usually nothing to worry about. The thing I found that really interested me was when I went to grab a file or open a movie Wireshark would report -

"32349 236.573090 192.168.1.150 192.168.1.118 SMB Trans2 Response, FIND_FIRST2, Error: STATUS_NO_SUCH_FILE"

192.168.1.118 is my main pc that I am retrieving the file on and 192.168.1.150 is the 323. It keeps repeating "NO_SUCH_FILE" until it finally opens. I'm about to get my laptop out and see if I get the same results. By the way, everything on my network has a static ip and I have no other issues. I may go ahead and upgrade to 1.04 just for grins, but I need to back up my data first.

mig · 2008-02-05 03:01:36

Grimham wrote:
By the way, everything on my network has a static ip and I have no other issues.

A Google search for "response, FIND_FIRST2, Error: STATUS_NO_SUCH_FILE" found this post

http://www.tech-geeks.org/list-archive/ … 00156.html

Which seems to point to DNS issues, since you have an all static IP network, are you running a DNS?

fordem · 2008-02-05 03:26:51

Given the previous post where he mentions ...

Actually that's exactly what I use "\\192.168.1.150\Volume_1".

there would be no DNS lookup and no need for a DNS server.

mihar · 2008-02-05 20:39:56

fordem wrote:
Enabling jumbo frame on one device in a network which does not completely support jumbo frame should not cause it to "not respond" - I would expect perhaps decreased performance, but not a complete failure.

Unfortunately in my case it is a complete failure... Turning on jumbo frame on my NIC will cause my router to completely ignore the connection and isolate my system...

I get what you mean but this is Dlink we're dealing with so i'm not suprised this is happening... But i'm not too bothered about jumbo frames since i have a pure gigabit networking environment and everything is working just fine....

The annoying thing is, i have a Dlink gigabit switch dgs-1005d connected which does support jumbo frames...

Why the heck can't they make a device with all the features one would expect rather than come up with something that has half of what you want and another device with the other half of the features...

mihar · 2008-02-05 20:46:24

sjmac wrote:
fordem wrote:
Enabling jumbo frame on one device in a network which does not completely support jumbo frame should not cause it to "not respond" - I would expect perhaps decreased performance, but not a complete failure.
Well as the switch (level 2) doesn't support Jumbo frames in this case, they get dropped. Only routers (at level 3 of the network stack) will fragment packets or send ICMP replies, so what happens next depends on what the client chooses to do when nothing comes back after the connection request.

I think UDP and TCP have different behaviours too, and I'd expect any of a range of frustrating behaviours from lower performance or failed connections to slow initial connections depending on the protocol (tcp or udp) and the client and server OS network stacks.

This article (page 3 of 5 linked) discusses most of the issues: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/ … 01/54/1/2/ - it's a can o' worms!

Wow... thanks for linking that... made me understand networking and especially jumbo frames better...

Based on what the article explains, the problem lies in my router since it is obviously dropping every packet sent from my nic...

I definitely need to get a new router... Anyone knows if the DGL-4500 supports jumbo frames?

Grimham · 2008-02-06 04:22:56

Thanks for the ideas guys, and special thanks to "mig". At least with Wireshark I know what the problem is. I'm going to do a complete backup and flash my 323 to the latest
frimware then recreate/format my RAID 1 array. We'll see how it goes from there. There really shouldn't be and reason I'm getting the "NO SUCH FILE" errors, I'll do some
indepth research if my reinstall/flash doesn't take care of things for me.

mealto · 2008-02-06 08:11:40

So if it's ok to ask here, why would you need a streaming server when you can just click on an mp3 file or avi file and watch / listen to the movie or song? Still learning here. Any help would be appreciated.

sjmac · 2008-02-06 09:58:47

mealto wrote:
So if it's ok to ask here, why would you need a streaming server when you can just click on an mp3 file or avi file and watch / listen to the movie or song? Still learning here. Any help would be appreciated.

Well for example, I have a UPnP MediaPlayer underneath my TV set that I use to play music from a UPnP MediaServer, but it can't browse plain file shares because (I suppose) it doesn't have enough memory to build indexes of the 10,000 mp3 files and other video files by artist name, track name, ...

Using a UPnP AV MediaServer you have just one device keeping an eye on the music and video, keeping the indexes up to date, and all the players just browse the server index. Like my phone, a radio in the kitchen, the dvd player under the TV set.

Also, my phone can act as a UPnP Control Point, so I could browse the server, choose a song to play, and then select which UPnP AV MediaRederer to use to play the song, like a super duper remote control. Or throw up a photo on the TV screen that I just took on the phone.

Anyway, that's the theory. In practice the experience is that some devices will see the server on some days but not others, sometimes the media will freeze part way through playing, or not play at all, or be invisible once I've navigated to the right folder. Using the phone as a remote control seems to route music from the server via the phone during playing, so if I wonder out of WiFi range of the access point the music stops.

Nice list of UPnP AV pieces at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ … _standards

sjmac · 2008-02-06 10:33:33

And also, a UPnP AV MediaServer might be able to detect the capabilities of a connecting device, and then transcode the request file to a format that the MediaPlayer can actually use. I've never seen that happen though.

mihar · 2008-02-06 13:05:45

mealto wrote:
So if it's ok to ask here, why would you need a streaming server when you can just click on an mp3 file or avi file and watch / listen to the movie or song? Still learning here. Any help would be appreciated.

Lol... ever tried watching a divx or (insert your favourite codec here) movie on a 42 inch or bigger lcd screen halfway across the room from where the file is stored? Or for that matter, play your favourite songs from anywhere in your house streamed from your pc or server located in your basement...

That's the basic description of streaming...

mealto · 2008-02-06 19:54:50

I see, thanks for all the info. Much appreciated.

mihar wrote:
mealto wrote:
So if it's ok to ask here, why would you need a streaming server when you can just click on an mp3 file or avi file and watch / listen to the movie or song? Still learning here. Any help would be appreciated.
Lol... ever tried watching a divx or (insert your favourite codec here) movie on a 42 inch or bigger lcd screen halfway across the room from where the file is stored? Or for that matter, play your favourite songs from anywhere in your house streamed from your pc or server located in your basement...

That's the basic description of streaming...

mihar, yes, I have watched large movie files in a separate room of the house so not sure what you are trying to get at when you say "That's the basic description of streaming". There are various ways to do it. Slignbox over LAN, adding gear (IR extender & input/output boxes) to the existing cable lines in the house etc...

As for songs, I am not sure that it's always streaming when you access them over a LAN. Depending on the software used and the type of media files, sometimes, it requires a full download and sometimes it streams. Again, not sure how your response of "what" coincides with the above question of "why".

But thanks to all who provided great info.

Last edited by mealto (2008-02-06 19:55:54)

mihar · 2008-02-06 22:14:06

I have no idea what a slingbox is or how it's used since it's not sold where i live... Non US resident...

But from your question:

mealto wrote:

So if it's ok to ask here, why would you need a streaming server when you can just click on an mp3 file or avi file and watch / listen to the movie or song? Still learning here. Any help would be appreciated.

it is implied that you're playing the file directly on the device that it's stored on... e.g using media player to play the file stored on the harddisk...

Streaming on the other hand does not require the data/file to reside on the same device being used to play... Also, multiple devices can access the same file at the same time although there might be performance issues which i'm not too sure...

In my case, i'm having UPnP enabled on the DNS and playing the files from my PS3... I can use either a wired or wireless connection (Wireless G)...

Also a full download is not necessary as that defeats the purpose of streaming in the first place... The file is played as soon it starts transferring... Something like printer spooling where the printer starts printing before the program has finished processing all the pages...

DSM-G600, DNS-3xx and NSA-220 Hack Forum

Announcement

#1 2008-02-01 06:12:38

Streaming from the 323

#2 2008-02-01 07:00:03

Re: Streaming from the 323

#3 2008-02-01 13:11:01

Re: Streaming from the 323

#4 2008-02-02 07:18:41

Re: Streaming from the 323

#5 2008-02-02 10:53:58

Re: Streaming from the 323

#6 2008-02-02 11:43:56

Re: Streaming from the 323

Grimham wrote:

#7 2008-02-03 09:44:19

Re: Streaming from the 323

sjmac wrote:

Grimham wrote:

#8 2008-02-03 13:53:07

Re: Streaming from the 323

mihar wrote:

#9 2008-02-04 10:46:44

Re: Streaming from the 323

#10 2008-02-04 17:55:24

Re: Streaming from the 323

#11 2008-02-04 19:27:43

Re: Streaming from the 323

fordem wrote:

#12 2008-02-04 21:10:55

Re: Streaming from the 323

#13 2008-02-04 23:17:55

Re: Streaming from the 323

#14 2008-02-05 02:14:57

Re: Streaming from the 323

sjmac wrote:

#15 2008-02-05 03:01:36

Re: Streaming from the 323

Grimham wrote:

#16 2008-02-05 03:26:51

Re: Streaming from the 323

#17 2008-02-05 20:39:56

Re: Streaming from the 323

fordem wrote:

#18 2008-02-05 20:46:24

Re: Streaming from the 323

sjmac wrote:

fordem wrote:

#19 2008-02-06 04:22:56

Re: Streaming from the 323

#20 2008-02-06 08:11:40

Re: Streaming from the 323

#21 2008-02-06 09:58:47

Re: Streaming from the 323

mealto wrote:

#22 2008-02-06 10:33:33

Re: Streaming from the 323

#23 2008-02-06 13:05:45

Re: Streaming from the 323

mealto wrote:

#24 2008-02-06 19:54:50

Re: Streaming from the 323

mihar wrote:

mealto wrote:

#25 2008-02-06 22:14:06

Re: Streaming from the 323

Board footer