Network drives....where does all the BW go?

[W1GUH]

So I've no got a gigabyte Ethernet network drive, a gigabyte USB 2.0 to Ethernet adapter, and a CAT6 cable. All the status reported by Vista says 1Gb speed throughout, yet, on a current transfer, I'm get a "whopping" 3.38 MB bw. Where's the rest of the 125 MB bw? Sitting around being lazy?

At least it went up by an order of magnitude when I replaced the CAT5 cable.

Network drives don't make a good storage device for working on big files!

[n6hcm]

Network drives don't make a good storage device for working on big files!

the fastest connection is always the most direct connection. using "gigabyte" usb 2.0 to ethernet adapters are costly performance-wise. the output of the USB side is, well, a serial line and something (your computer) has to turn that stream into something useful. the driver does this. the driver does this by using the processing power in your computer

also, the USB bus is connected to the computer with another bus (and so another translation).

ideally you'd like a disk connected to your system with its native interface (SATA, SAS, SCSI, ...), and that native interface interface is connected to other system components in the most efficient way.

absent that possibility, an ethernet network interface that's built onto the motherboard (this usually has the most direct interface to everything else) to connect to your NAS-style storage.

any time you convert you lose bandwidth. anytime you rely on user-installed software to do what hardware could do you lose performance.

USB disks? they're convenient but there's at least one extra conversion that you don't need (hard disks don't come natively with USB support--there's a SATA-to-USB conversion in the box).

[n6hcm]

oh yeah--what are you connecting these network connections to? a 100Mb/s hub? a decent ethernet switch? using a xover cable between devices?

[W1GUH]

Well, all's what it should be. gigabit ethernet adapter, CAT6 cable, gigabit ethernet drive. Performance sucks, and I'm not going to throw away more time in the infinite sinkhole of immature technology. That last opinion comes from google-fu. Google "network drive problems" and you'll turn up LOTS and LOTS of problems. With performance issues, hang-ups..you name it. And all of the big 3 OS's are represented. XP, Vista, and Windows 7. Smacks of a technology that's not really "ready for the masses" yet. That's a red flag to me....says if I want to improve this, it's going to be LOTS of messing around. Can't be bothered with that. Better off just getting another USB, or maybe Firewire (don't know about that -- but I've got a port for it) drive eliminates this hassle.

And I turned up yet another problem....booting became unacceptably slow. Dunno why, Windows is pretty opaque when it's booting and give no indication of what it's doing. (IMHO, it's probably masturbating & can't be bothered!).

So....a network drive is not an appropriate technology for what I wanted.

Anyone want to buy a Network Drive cheap? Comes with the adapter & a CAT6 cable and the software. Cheap. Shiiping charges only. That's a genuine offer. Just want to get rid of it.

[KJ3N]

Anyone want to buy a Network Drive cheap? Comes with the adapter & a CAT6 cable and the software. Cheap. Shiiping charges only. That's a genuine offer. Just want to get rid of it.

I'll play with it for a while. Don't really need it, but I'm curious.

[N1LAF]

And a 100Mb throughput is near 10Mbyte/sec.

Get yourself a USB3 to PCI express card, and use a USB 3 drive. USB 3 is rated for 5Gb/s, SATA II is 3Gb/s. I transferred a 5 Gbyte file from one internal hard drive to another (both SATA II), taking 73 seconds to transfer. The same file was copied to another SATA II drive on a USB 3.0 connection, and it took 80 seconds, which is near internal HD transfer speed.

Right now, USB 3.0 is the way to go in transferring large files.

[W1GUH]

And a 100Mb throughput is near 10Mbyte/sec.

Get yourself a USB3 to PCI express card, and use a USB 3 drive. USB 3 is rated for 5Gb/s, SATA II is 3Gb/s. I transferred a 5 Gbyte file from one internal hard drive to another (both SATA II), taking 73 seconds to transfer. The same file was copied to another SATA II drive on a USB 3.0 connection, and it took 80 seconds, which is near internal HD transfer speed.

Right now, USB 3.0 is the way to go in transferring large files.

Laptop. No can do. Want drive for free? I'll drive it up and drop it off.

[N1LAF]

How about this....

SYBA SD-EXP20070 USB 3.0 Type-II Slim Flush Mount ExpressCard/34mm for Laptop PC
$19.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16839328042

[kf0rt]

Get a Synology DiskStation, Paul. On gigabit Ethernet, these babies scream. And they appear to work without futzing around.

[KC2UGV]

Well, all's what it should be. gigabit ethernet adapter, CAT6 cable, gigabit ethernet drive. Performance sucks, and I'm not going to throw away more time in the infinite sinkhole of immature technology. That last opinion comes from google-fu. Google "network drive problems" and you'll turn up LOTS and LOTS of problems. With performance issues, hang-ups..you name it. And all of the big 3 OS's are represented. XP, Vista, and Windows 7. Smacks of a technology that's not really "ready for the masses" yet. That's a red flag to me....says if I want to improve this, it's going to be LOTS of messing around. Can't be bothered with that. Better off just getting another USB, or maybe Firewire (don't know about that -- but I've got a port for it) drive eliminates this hassle.

And I turned up yet another problem....booting became unacceptably slow. Dunno why, Windows is pretty opaque when it's booting and give no indication of what it's doing. (IMHO, it's probably masturbating & can't be bothered!).

So....a network drive is not an appropriate technology for what I wanted.

Anyone want to buy a Network Drive cheap? Comes with the adapter & a CAT6 cable and the software. Cheap. Shiiping charges only. That's a genuine offer. Just want to get rid of it.

Yeah, it might be the drive you are using, as well. I have an HP NAS that runs comparable to my SATA drives... Then again, I am using the Linux iSCSI drivers.

So, it might not be the network drive technology, but rather the particular drive you are using. The HP NAS came from an enterprise environment, and there were no complaints there.

So, another question is: How are you connecting to the network drive? What technology are you using? SMB (Aka Windows Shares)? iSCSI?

[KJ3N]

Want drive for free? I'll drive it up and drop it off.

http://www.tubeclockdb.com/media/kunena/attachments/3091/horshack.jpg

You don't have to drive it down. Tell me what you need to ship it.

[W1GUH]

http://www.tvacres.com/images/language_horshack.jpg

You don't have to drive it down. Tell me what you need to ship it.

Sure. I said it, I'll do it, but what I really had in mind was someone who has a need for a network drive. If that's what I was after, it would have been 100% satisfactory - it's just not good as hi-speed mass storage. OTOH, if I had multiple machines that needed to share files, it'd be great.*

So, not saying "no"....just want to drag my feet to see if there's someone out their with this application to fulfill.

Fair enough?


* With this caveat....

At least Vista (dunno about XP and &7) got very, very confused when I unplugged the adapter. Didn't gracefully accept the absence of a network drive. Kept trying to connect over and over. Couldn't get it through it's thick RAM that it wasn't there. Also, booting had at least a time problem. Waited and waited for Vista to come up. Finally said screw it & forced a shutdown.

Then, when I FINALLY managed to disconnect that network drive, it remained in Windows Explorer. Had to do a system restore to get rid of it. Let the user beware!

Great platform if you love to spend time invistigating this stuff! Interesting challenge there. Again, if I'm going to mess with HW, it'll be a hot soldering iron in the guts of a BA!!!!! YMMV, of course.

[W1GUH]

Yeah, it might be the drive you are using, as well. I have an HP NAS that runs comparable to my SATA drives... Then again, I am using the Linux iSCSI drivers.

So, it might not be the network drive technology, but rather the particular drive you are using. The HP NAS came from an enterprise environment, and there were no complaints there.

So, another question is: How are you connecting to the network drive? What technology are you using? SMB (Aka Windows Shares)? iSCSI?

Very good point, Corey. Could very well be the drive itself. And I really appreciate the suggestion. But since it wasn't really a network drive I was after, I decided that, given the problems other than speed (outlined in my previous post), it's just too much trouble. Will just get another USB disk.

[KC2UGV]

Very good point, Corey. Could very well be the drive itself. And I really appreciate the suggestion. But since it wasn't really a network drive I was after, I decided that, given the problems other than speed (outlined in my previous post), it's just too much trouble. Will just get another USB disk.

Go Firewire :) Or that new thing Apple and Intel worked on (Can't recall the name of the interface).

[NQ6U]

Go Firewire :) Or that new thing Apple and Intel worked on (Can't recall the name of the interface).

Thunderbolt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_%28interface%29) Best. Interface. Ever.

[KC2UGV]

Thunderbolt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)) Best. Interface. Ever.

Does anything use it yet? I know the displayconnect stuff is backwards compatible, so you can use it there; but it anything actually using the new features?

[W1GUH]

Go Firewire :) Or that new thing Apple and Intel worked on (Can't recall the name of the interface).

Thanks! Been wondering about that & it'd be fun to use that port. Well check that out.

[W1GUH]

Thunderbolt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_%28interface%29) Best. Interface. Ever.

Looks very attractive. The wave of the future?

Will be following it.

[N1LAF]

USB 3.0 will kick Firewire's butt.

Anyone here familiar with 8b10b encode/decode? NRZ? NRZI?

[W1GUH]

I'll get 3.0 in the new machine I'm getting.

[KJ3N]

So, not saying "no"....just want to drag my feet to see if there's someone out their with this application to fulfill.

Fair enough?

Understood.


Great platform if you love to spend time invistigating this stuff! Interesting challenge there.

And that's my primary interest. Never messed with it before and I don't mind playing with something and "beating" it into submission. ;)

[W1GUH]

Understood.



And that's my primary interest. Never messed with it before and I don't mind playing with something and "beating" it into submission. ;)

Sounds very good to me. I'll get a shipping estimate and PM you with the details. Probably tomorrow.

[KJ3N]

Sounds very good to me. I'll get a shipping estimate and PM you with the details. Probably tomorrow.

BTW, is there a link somewhere for this device? Might as well start doing my homework.

[n2ize]

Yeah, it might be the drive you are using, as well. I have an HP NAS that runs comparable to my SATA drives... Then again, I am using the Linux iSCSI drivers.

So, it might not be the network drive technology, but rather the particular drive you are using. The HP NAS came from an enterprise environment, and there were no complaints there.

So, another question is: How are you connecting to the network drive? What technology are you using? SMB (Aka Windows Shares)? iSCSI?

It still sucks. You should just be able to plug it in and it should run at top speed. Sounds like false marketing to me.

[KC2UGV]

It still sucks. You should just be able to plug it in and it should run at top speed. Sounds like false marketing to me.

It could have ran at full speed, after plugging it in. However, every environment is different.

[W1GUH]

It could have ran at full speed, after plugging it in. However, every environment is different.

Everything you've said on this subject rings very true. IMHO, the fact that it doesn't happen that way says it's not really Plug 'n Play yet. Anything I've ever plugged into a USB port has come up right away with full performance. This technology looks like it's got a ways to go until it comes up like that.

Yea, I'm a lazy slob when it comes to this, I admit it! OTOH, when you buy a car, you don't really want to have to mess with it in your spare time to make it like the manufacturer promised!

Thanks for the insights!

[W1GUH]

BTW, is there a link somewhere for this device? Might as well start doing my homework.

Yea. Here it is. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812224002&Tpk=GWC%20AE2300%20Gigabit%20USB%202.0%20Ethernet% 20Adapter)

[KJ3N]

Yea. Here it is. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812224002&Tpk=GWC%20AE2300%20Gigabit%20USB%202.0%20Ethernet% 20Adapter)

Actually, I was referring to the drive, but that looks interesting too.

[W1GUH]

Actually, I was referring to the drive, but that looks interesting too.

Oh, sorry. It's a WD 2TB ByBookLive. Should be easy to find.

I just PM'ed you with particulars. Can probably get it out tomorrow.

Thanks! Sounds like you're going to get some valuable info!

[KC2UGV]

Yea, I'm a lazy slob when it comes to this, I admit it!

No you're not. You're the victim of a poor job in putting a solution together :)


OTOH, when you buy a car, you don't really want to have to mess with it in your spare time to make it like the manufacturer promised!

Thanks for the insights!

Exactly. Chances are, if the OEM just re-used the inbuilt windows iSCSI initiator, you would have seen a dramatic increase.

On the other hand, you really need a top-notch switch as well. Not all switching fabrics are created equal. Me? I lucked out and got a couple of retired 24-port GigE managed switches from Netgear. No consumer device can match a datacenter grade switching fabric.

[W1GUH]

Oh No!! I'm a victim!!!! Oh, the shame of it all!!! <--sarcasm LOL

And there was no switch. Direct cable from the ethernet port to the drive. That was one of the pluses of putting it on its own LAN -- kept it off the outside world.



No you're not. You're the victim of a poor job in putting a solution together :)



Exactly. Chances are, if the OEM just re-used the inbuilt windows iSCSI initiator, you would have seen a dramatic increase.

On the other hand, you really need a top-notch switch as well. Not all switching fabrics are created equal. Me? I lucked out and got a couple of retired 24-port GigE managed switches from Netgear. No consumer device can match a datacenter grade switching fabric.

[KC2UGV]

Oh No!! I'm a victim!!!! Oh, the shame of it all!!! <--sarcasm LOL

And there was no switch. Direct cable from the ethernet port to the drive. That was one of the pluses of putting it on its own LAN -- kept it off the outside world.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply it was through any fault of your own, but rather the OEM who put the solution together for you to buy.

[W1GUH]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply it was through any fault of your own, but rather the OEM who put the solution together for you to buy.

No problem, Corey -- I knew what you meant.

:cheers:

[n2ize]

Oh No!! I'm a victim!!!! Oh, the shame of it all!!! <--sarcasm LOL

And there was no switch. Direct cable from the ethernet port to the drive. That was one of the pluses of putting it on its own LAN -- kept it off the outside world.

Direct cable from what ethernet port ? Are you saying you plugged the drive directly into the port on the computer ?

[W1GUH]

Well, the port on the USB to gigabit interface. Yea. So what?

Then I tried to plug it into my Medi-port, but it wouldn't fit!

[n2ize]

Well, the port on the USB to gigabit interface. Yea. So what?


Ah... that may be where the problem was.

[KJ3N]

Well, the port on the USB to gigabit interface. Yea. So what?
Ah... that may be where the problem was.

Based on my preliminary tests, that is exactly where the problem is.

Paul, why did you choose to use the Ethernet to USB adapter in the first place?

[W1GUH]

Based on my preliminary tests, that is exactly where the problem is.

Paul, why did you choose to use the Ethernet to USB adapter in the first place?


'Cuz I didn't have gigabit ethernet.

I DID get a 10x increase from 10/100 ethernet, but 10x Suck is still suck!

[W1GUH]

'ize:


Ah... that may be where the problem was.

Please to explain?

[KC2UGV]

'ize:



Please to explain?

Any time you put something in the path, it adds latency, and hence slow down. USB isn't directly connected to the bus. PCI(x, e, etc) is. So, you added a whole lot of overhead by using USB instead of an PCI card.

[KJ3N]

'Cuz I didn't have gigabit ethernet.

I DID get a 10x increase from 10/100 ethernet, but 10x Suck is still suck!

Well, let me give some informal results of my tests. Parameters are as follows:

1Gb 16-port NetGear network switch
One ActionTek wireless router running 802.11b/g
One desktop PC with a 802.11b/g wireless card
One Novell NW6.5 server with 10/100Mb ethernet PCI card
One desktop PC with onboard 1Gb ethernet card
Cat-5e cabling for the wired part of my network

Transfer a 225MB from the Novell server to MyBook using desktop PC with wireless 802.11b/g: Sustained transfer rate of 17Mbps. Time to complete file transfer was 4.5 minutes

Transfer 496MB file from Novell server to MyBook using desktop PC with onboard 1 Gb ethernet card: Sustained transfer rate of 125Mbps. Time to complete transfer was under 2 minutes.

Transfer 699MB file directly from desktop with wireless to MyBook: Sustained transfer rate of 18Mbps. Time to complete transfer was 6 minutes 13 seconds.

Transfer 3.46GB file directly from desktop PC with onboard 1Gb ethernet card to MyBook: Sustained transfer rate in excess of 300Mbps (with peaks as high as 380Mbps). Time to complete transfer was under 2 minutes.

Based on the above tests, the results you experienced, Paul, are due entirely to the USB to ethernet adapter bottleneck. If you had a router with wireless capability, you'd be better off plugging the MyBook into the router and using wireless on a laptop.

JMO


Any time you put something in the path, it adds latency, and hence slow down. USB isn't directly connected to the bus. PCI(x, e, etc) is. So, you added a whole lot of overhead by using USB instead of an PCI card.

What Corey said.

[W1GUH]

Or....decide not to use an ethernet drive? Remember?

[N1LAF]

Keep in mind that a 100Mbps is only 10Mbytes per second tops, without the overhead

USB 2.0 is only 480 Mbps, which is 48 Mbytes/sec
ATA133 (Parallel Interfaced Hard drives) is 133Mbytes/sec(Interface), while the drive internal rate is only like 44 Mbytes/sec. This is why Caches cache size are important.

USB 3.0 is rated at 5Gbps, or 600 Mbytes/sec. To fully utilize the transfer rate, PCI Express x4 will be needed, 4 lanes with 250 Mbyte/sec per lane transfer.

There are two things to consider. Latency effect is in terms of delay, Overhead is in terms of loss due to format and signalling.

You may question some of my math, which I can explain simply, that in asynchronous serial transmissions, 8b10b encode/decode are most likely used, meaning that sending a byte will use 10 bits. Bit patterns are needed to keep the bias, or 'carrier', neutral.