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

fordem wrote:

I've had copy times reported as slow as 7,392.31 KB per sec on a 10MB file on the DNS 323, where NT averages 1,600 KB per sec.

I don't know if you recognize it, but, 7,392.31KB/sec happens to be roughly 4.5 times faster than 1,600 KB/sec.

Thanks Fordem for your reply.

You are right that would be a faster speed. At this point in time I'm unable to duplicate that test which was using SuperCopierBeta,  but all other tests including backups and file copying clearly demonstrate the DNS 323 is twice as slow at copying files and all other LAN file operations,
as the old Pentium 3 which has slower drives on a Raid 1.

Today I tried to map via the IP number and attempted the copying files test again, and it remains twice as slow.

As out of the box in our situation the DNS 323 seems very slow compared to our vintage hardware, for instance backing up a set of folders to our NT/P3
box takes 7 minutes where with the DNS 323 it takes 14 minutes.

* The question remains, is there someway to optimize a DNS-323's file 
   transfer performance when used on an XP LAN?

If you can qualify your speeds in MegaBytes/sec you can compare your transfer rate to
the tests done on http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/componen … temid,190/
Smallnetbuilder shows 10 - 20 MBytes /sec for the DNS-323, depending on RAID level and
file sizes.  I get ~15MBytes/sec RAID1, gigaEthernet, no jumbo frames.

The DNS-323 is several years old now, and uses a 500 Mhz Marvell 88F5181 proprietary
Feroceon ARM CPU architecture with 64BMB RAM.  There are newer NASs on the market
which use the Marvell "Kirkwood" 88F6281 CPU clocked at 1.2 GHz and come with 256MB
or 512MB of RAM.  These new NASs have transfer speeds in the 40 - 60MBytes/sec range.

IMHO, the amount of RAM on the NAS has the largest effect to improve file transfer speed.

One of the difficulties I have experienced using the DNS-323 for backup purposes is the transfer speed.

Whilst it is capable of transfers approaching 20~30MB/sec, it will only deliver this performance on large file copies, so if your back up is being done as a file copy and the data set consists of a few thousand small files, the transfer speed will drop to a ridiculously low rate (I've seen <0.5MB/sec - I kid you not), if, on the other hand you are using a backup utility that images the backup you should find that it delivers reasonable performance.