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

Remember - it's supposed to be a printer port - how faster do you need it to be

I've been looking at the available information on the DNS-323 and the Marvell silicon that it's built around,  I haven't found anything definitive but all the writeups that I've seen on the Marvell 88F5181 processor suggest it does include USB 2.0.

This morning I was looking at the DMESG.OUT file and found a reference to a Marvell USB EHCI Controller #0 (EHCI or Enhanced Host Controller Interface is the USB 2.0 spec) and lower down

ehci_platform ehci_platform.20865: EHCI Host Controller
ehci_platform ehci_platform.20865: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 1
ehci_platform ehci_platform.20865: irq 17, io mem 0x00000000
ehci_platform ehci_platform.20865: park 0
ehci_platform ehci_platform.20865: USB 0.0 initialized, EHCI 1.00, driver 10 Dec 2004
hub 1-0:1.0: USB hub found
hub 1-0:1.0: 1 port detected

Which again points to USB2.0 hardware being present.

Among my USB flash drives is an IBM USB 2.0 one that lights orange for USB2.0 and green for USB 1.x - when I plug this into the USB port, it lights orange, further confirming that it is USB2.0.

Transferring a 72 MB file from the USB key to one of the disks in the DNS-323 using cp took about 7 seconds for the telnet prompt to return.  10MB/sec works out to around 80 mbps, way over your 12 mbps USB1.1 speed - for further confirmation, I connected the USB key through a USB hub, got the green light on the flash drive confirming the expected USB 1.x connection and the same copy took almost 70 seconds or roughly 8 mbps - a little under the 12 mbps USB 1.1 spec, but above the 1.5 mbps USB 1.0 spec.

I think we can conclude that it is a USB2.0 port.

Last edited by fordem (2007-06-02 19:50:09)

Actually that may be a function of how your copy was done - if it was through Windows Explorer, you would have transferred the data across the network coming and going and possibly limiting the speed to that of your network.

When I tested, I deliberately used cp from a telnet prompt to keep the data within the DNS-323

Don't forget the network card in the PC - it might be cheaper to just pickup a gigabit switch, a little 5 port Netgear GS105 or similar - and just so you're aware of it, you won't see more than around 170 mbps throughput from the DNS-323 on gigabit

Personally I think gigabit LANs are overkill for home networks unless you've got lot extensive video/audio collections that you plan on moving around frequently - you'll see >90 mbps on an average 100 mbps LAN, but rarely more than 200~300 mbps on gigabit unless the computers themselves have RAID and high performance disk subsystems.

Look at it like this - if I moved 13 GB in 30 minutes on my 100 mbs LAN, it would only take 10 minutes if I switched to gigabit, saving me 20 minutes, which can seem like an eternity if you're sitting waiting - but - how often do I actually do that?  Very rarely.  The solution, go get a cup of coffee or something during the file transfer.

When you say a 100 mbps router, I assume you mean a typical router with 100 mbps switch - traffic between devices connected to that switch will be limited to 100 mbps.  If you connect a gigabit switch to that router, traffic that has to pass through the router will still be limited to 100 mbps, but traffic between devices directly connected to the gigabit switch will not have that limit.

If you don't have the DNS-323 connected to the gigabit switch, I would do that as a first step - I'd estimate your transfer speeds between the desktop and the DNS-323's internal drive to show as much as a 100% improvement.

I don't know if you'll see any improvement with transfers through the USB port, but I don't see why not - the transfer speeds will be as fast as the slowest interface in the chain - you're going from one hard drive, through some sort of ATA/USB converter, through the processor in the DNS-323, across the network, through the PC, and then either to the drive in the PC or back across the network to the DNS-323.  Without testing, it's hard to say where the chokepoint will be, and even something like fragmentation on the disks can have an impact.

BTW, fordem, I just noticed this in the Status tab of the router setup GUI: 

PRINTER INFO :
Manufacturer:  Cypress Semiconductor
Product:  USB2.0 Storage Device

Let me try my hand at ASCII graphics -

For the purpose of this discussion, the Netgear router has a 10/100 mbps switch, and both PC1 & PC2 have gigabit ethernet cards.

   Internet
       |
       |
NETGEAR ROUTER
    '              '
    '              '
    '              '
PC1            '
                   '
                   '
D-Link GbE Switch
   "              "
   "              "
   "              "
PC2        DNS323


Transfers between PC1 and either PC2 or the DNS323 can not be more than 100 mbps because that is the maximum speed of the Netgear switch, however they can be less than 100 mbps depending on the devices involved - in my tests the DNS-323 has been the limiting factor at around 70 mbps, with a PC1 to PC2 transfer hitting as much as 98 mbps.

Transfers between PC2 and the DNS323 can be more than 100 mbps, as this does not have to pass through the Netgear switch - again, they can be less, and in my tests the DNS-323 has also been the limiting factor at around 150 mbps.

The entire network is behind the Netgear router and protected by the firewall in the router - transfers from the internet to any connected device are limited usually be the speed of the internet connection, although I have heard of instances where with high speed broadband, the processing power of the firewall has been the limit.

As regards your speed test - I think you need to use larger files, as there will be some overhead required to position disk heads, create allocation table entries etc.