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

Sounds nice. But why didnt you just compile the nfsd module from the gpl kit?

Thanks, Oxygen, but I do not have a build environment set up, and the documentation for anything I've found related to kernel mods/enhancements on the DNS-323 is pretty sketchy.  "Just compile" is more complicated than you're implying.


I found documentation regarding the header format here, at http://theshed.hezmatt.org/dns323-firmware-tools/, and used the tools at the URL, http://hg.leschinsky.in.ua/makeFirmware/, to decode the current DLink and Conceptronix firmware images.

The important difference between the two images is in the Custom ID field.  For CH3SNAS, the firmware has a Customer ID of 2:

$ python showfirmware.py Firmware/CH3SNAS_FW_UPD_v1.05b5.bin
Kernel offset: 64
Kernel length: 1456056
Ramdisk offset: 1456120
Ramdisk length: 6450696
Defaults offset: 7906816
Defaults length: 7320
Kernel checksum: 2780057677
Ramsdisk checksum: 616315818
Defaults checksum: 823496182
Magic number: U�FrodoIIU�
Product id: 7
Custom id: 2
Model_id: 1
Sub id: 1
New version: 4
Reserved:
Next offset: 0

DLink firmware has a Custom ID of 1.  Since the CH3SNAS and DNS-323 Rev B1 units are the same hardware, the firmware should be interchangeable.

I tried simply uploading the CH3SNAS firmware using the DLink web interface, but received an error message.  No surprise there.  So, taking a closer look at the firrmware header yielded:

$ xxd Firmware/CH3SNAS_FW_UPD_v1.05b5.bin | head -4
0000000: 4000 0000 b837 1600 f837 1600 086e 6200  @....7...7...nb.
0000010: 00a6 7800 981c 0000 4d50 b4a5 aa3b bc24  ..x.....MP...;.$
0000020: f68d 1531 55aa 4672 6f64 6f49 4900 55aa  ...1U.FrodoII.U.
0000030: 0702 0101 0400 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000  ................

Note the hex sequence '0702 0101' at offset x0030.  Those values correspond to the Product ID, Custom ID, Model ID and Sub ID fields.  I used a hex editor to change the sequence to '0701 0101'.  The modified image uploaded correctly.

After rebooting, the Conceptronix firmware came up and I was able to enable the kernel-based NFS server via ffp.  Except for the BitTorrent client, which I rarely use, the unit operates exactly the same as it did before.

- Steve

Great info.

Is there any significant difference in data transfer speed between the unfsd and kernel mode nfsd?

I have not done any real performance tests comparing UNFSD to the kernel-mode NFSD, sorry.  By definition though, the kernel-mode server should run faster.  How much is a really good question, and it probably depends heavily on the workload.

All of my settings, including user accounts and file shares, came across with no problem.  The only thing that is missing is the DLink BitTorrent client, which I rarely used anyway.  I also had to make some minor changes to /etc/exports.  I was using soft directory links to organize all my NFS shares in one spot, but the kernel NFS server seemed to have trouble using them.  So, I had to make changes like these in /etc/exports:

    /ffp/nfs/Music  -> /mnt/HD_a2/Music
    /ffp/nfs/Downloads -> /mnt/HD_b2/Downloads

The original DLink firmware I was using was 1.06, and I replaced that with the current Conceptronix firmware, 1.05b5.  I assume that this same technique can be used to go back to the DLink firmware, but I did not try it.

Also, be sure that your unit is Rev B1, since the older A1 DNS-323 revision is not the same as the CH3SNAS.

- Steve

Hi Steve,

Certainly the nfsd enabled kernel should move files faster.

Would you mind copying some large files and let us know the speed?

Thanks.

Thanks for the feedback, Sparkss.  I am definitely interested in some objective data on the difference in transfer speeds.  "It feels faster" doesn't really cut it

- Steve

unfsd was marginally faster than nfsd on the ch3snas FW (8.5 vs 8.25). I am going to downgrade the system to the DLink FW to see if that has any effect.

Hey, Sparkss.  No worries at all, so don't be too hard on yourself.

What are you using for a benchmark?  Something off the net or homegrown?

ok, test results time. Still not going to make alot of people happy, I don't think.

The results between nfsd and unfsd were pretty much a draw. I saw neglible differences between the two when streaming the same files to measure throughput. Both clocked in around 13 Mb/s. IIRC the main advantage for kernel mode nfsd is that it uses less resources, so if you run alot of background processes then your results could be different. We had leaned out our NAS to squeeze as much out of it as possible for media streaming via NFS. If I were to test from multiple locations (reading throughput to 2 separate places at the same time) I suspect I would see a difference between user and kernel mode NFS, but for single streaming an minimal background processes I don't see any improvement. YMMV 

Thanks for the info and links Fonz. I am probably going to leave my own DNS w/ the kernel NFS running, but don't plan to upgrade my other one just yet. After over a year of use I haven't come across anything that it can't do within my normal daily usage. I was just looking to eek a bit more throughput out of it for those higher bit rate BD images . I am definitely going to keep the information that sbalousek provided and the FW that I have already edited, all for future use . Many thanks to the thread starter and as always, thanks to you Fonz for fun plug .