Jump to content
XPEnology Community

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bearcat said:

Is your laptop 1 and 2 the same make/model? (can you share the make/model?)

 

Can you verify USB-3 speed on your PC1? (with external HDD or USB running "full" speed)

 

Can you do an iPerf test between PC1 and PC2, not involving your NAS?

 

192.168.1.6 is PC1 (My main PC Dell XPS 9343)

image.thumb.png.13d9e574f5176d4345458d129bc6de8a.png

 

Ran it the Opposite way also. PC2 is a Dell XPS 9333

image.thumb.png.09efd25398e9c93ee3976b1e4d1e4af6.png

 

If i plug in a hard drive into the cable matter usb-ethernet adapter and try to transfer a file i get speeds of 22MB/s. Does that mean its not running 3.0 speeds? Both usb ports on both these laptops are usb 3.0! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IG-88 said:

on windows you can have a closer look with this tool

https://www.uwe-sieber.de/usbtreeview_e.html

try to find a usb port where the usb nic is not sharing with other devices (that migth slow them down or swith to lower speeds)

 

 

any clue where i would find that?

 

This seems very interesting though

image.png.e3a020ca46ef7ce1b369b9ad11a57198.png

 

image.png.1a94c3de55860a5e937600beffd54a25.png

 

Can this POS not even be USB 3.0? It says 3.0 on the adapter.

 

 

 

Edited by syno406
br to be
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, only has 2 usb ports and both are 3.0, maybe missing drivers?

check device manager about missing drivers?

windows 10 knows about 3.0, windows 7 does not and need extra drivers

install Intel® USB 3.0 eXtensible Host Controller Driver if its windwos 7

also check bios about usb 3 settings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2019 at 4:11 PM, bearcat said:

A "wild" guess from me would be that your using an USB-2 port, that would end up giving you about 200Mb/s = 25MB/s

 

I don't want to say "I told you so" :-) so I won't ;-) 

Glad to hear you found the source, and hopefully you will enjoy "full speed" from now on :91_thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I successfully installed DSM 6.2.3-25426 with 1.03b loader onto my HP EX485 MediaSmart server but after SHR pool was created from my 3x Seagate 1TB disks I noticed extremely very slow read speed from the NAS. Windows shows 350KB/s. Downloading a file of 200Mb from NAS to desktop takes 34 seconds. The writing speed is good around 2MB/s. I have 1Gbit LAN and never had such speeds.  The read speed from another NAS in my network is 2MB/s. Where to dig?

Edited by reDDevil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slow read speeds, and the 2MBps write and from your other NAS suggests network misconfiguration or physical problems. Check network link speeds, network masks, patch cables, terminations, and gateway/routing if applicable.

 

2MBps is poor performance on a 1Gbe network. I expect something around 40-50MBps read/write from a three drive SHR when testing with large files.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 часов назад, flyride сказал:

Slow read speeds, and the 2MBps write and from your other NAS suggests network misconfiguration or physical problems. Check network link speeds, network masks, patch cables, terminations, and gateway/routing if applicable.

 

2MBps is poor performance on a 1Gbe network. I expect something around 40-50MBps read/write from a three drive SHR when testing with large files.  

You are right, 2Mbps of write is slow indeed. But it is 6x times more than read so I made a decision it is fast enough 😃 It is not a problem of cable, terminations and gateway/routing for 99% the server worked perfectly with its original WHS1 and Windows Server 2012 in the same network. A friend of mine with absolutely same HP EX485 installed DSM same date as me and he got the same problem of very slow speeds. Moreover he has the original Synology in his network which is much faster. I have Buffalo NAS and it is fast as well as it should. Something inside DSM or problems with the drivers I think. It is even not possible to stream any video from Plex with such speeds. Any suggestion what to do / test? The benchmark of HDD inside DSM takes a lot of time to test (about 10 minutes) and shows at the end:  172iops / 103 MB/s / 12.8ms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 часа назад, flyride сказал:

Slow read speeds, and the 2MBps write and from your other NAS suggests network misconfiguration or physical problems. Check network link speeds, network masks, patch cables, terminations, and gateway/routing if applicable.

 

2MBps is poor performance on a 1Gbe network. I expect something around 40-50MBps read/write from a three drive SHR when testing with large files.  

I am sorry. My previous test was wrong through old Wi-Fi. Made a new one on the computer connected to my 1Gbe network. Write speed is about 90MBps while read speed is only 5.4MBps. (which also shown in DSM monitoring). The downloading file of 720Mb from NAS to dekstop takes 2 minutes :(
The writing and reading speed to/from another Buffalo NAS in my network is 88/88MBps. I tried to change the LAN cable - it did not help. Also I wish to say that it is not my own problem. A friend of mine with the same machine has the same problem with read speed. So it is common and I hope to find a solution with your help.

Edited by reDDevil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, reDDevil said:

Something inside DSM or problems with the drivers I think

So far this opinion has not solved for you, so you are asking for assistance.

 

8 hours ago, reDDevil said:

Any suggestion what to do / test?

Yes, I gave you suggestions and you wrote a lot of response to dismiss them.

 

5 hours ago, reDDevil said:

Also I wish to say that it is not my own problem. A friend of mine with the same machine has the same problem with read speed

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  This is your problem.  It won't fix itself.

 

So at risk of being entirely repetitious, please consider that in order to troubleshoot, you must rule out the obvious.  I offered some specific items to review and it is apparent you have not done so.  If you require feedback on them, please POST something that can be objectively evaluated.

 

For example, full description of your network design, hardware, hosts with IP addresses, netmasks, gateways, etc would be a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

20 часов назад, flyride сказал:

Yes, I gave you suggestions and you wrote a lot of response to dismiss them.

 

I appreciate all and any input provided, and my reply in no way intended to show disrespect or neglect the provided suggestions. Perhaps I was not clear enough (pardon my English for that, as I'm not a native speaker), and yet I made a typo when indicating my write speeds.

But for the sake of clarity, I just wanted to explain that the problem I observe doesn't have to do with network misconfiguration or malfunction, to the best of my understanding at least.

 

Should that be a case, I would have experienced both read and write speeds being (too) slow. I would have as well experienced the same on the other devices I have. Neither is the case for me. What is also of secondary concern, is «in general», actual network speeds vs expected given the hardware setup (a rough example here: whether it runs on 80-90 mbps instead of 100-120 is not an issue for me atm).

I've double-checked the settings, and I've changed the cable as well and finally, I've tested another NAS that I have connecting it exactly the same way (and using same ports and cables) as my HP - to discover that it gives me way better and  correlating speeds on both read and write operations.

And the core of my issue with HP is that it gives 'good' or acceptable speed with write operations on to it, and very poor speed ONLY for reading off it. And the latter is beyond any reasonable numbers. Or should I rather say, below.

 

20 часов назад, flyride сказал:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  This is your problem.  It won't fix itself.

 

When I said of this problem being not only my own, I actually meant it is not unique with me and my setup, since a friend of mine has absolutely the same issue. I've asked him to contribute to this thread by providing his details in full also.

 

So, to continue and make the issue as clear as possible...

 

My specs of NAS with Xpenology DSM running:
HP Ex485 MediaSmart server

CPU: Intel Pentium Processor E5200 2M Cache, 2.50 GHz, 800 MHz FSB

RAM: 2Gb DDR2 SDRAM 800 Mhz

Interface Type: Serial ATA-300 (SATA 3Gb/s)

LAN adapter: Realtek 10/100/1000 (Gigabit) RJ45 Ethernet. For Ubuntu it uses enp2s0 driver as I discovered

All HDD disks are in perfect condition without any BAD blocks

 

The network is made with Gigabit switch: TP-link TL-SG1024D.

HP Ex485 connected to it has 1Gbit LED on as well as iMac where the following LAN speed tests were made from.

All tests made with Packet size: 500MB

 

1st test to a shared folder on BASIC storage pool of DSM created from single 3TB Seagate HDD ST3000DM001

Average writing speed: 89.78MBps
Average reading speed: 5.45MBps

 

2nd test to a shared folder on SHR storage pool of DSM created from three 1TB disks:
WD1002FBYS

WD1002FBYS

ST1000NM0008
Average writing speed: 87.54MBps
Average reading speed: 5.52MBps
 

3rd test to a shared folder on RAID5 created from four Western Digital 2TB WD20EFRX4 disks on my another NAS Buffalo TS5400R (same network, same port on switch, same router and even same RJ45 cable):

Average writing speed: 85.57MBps
Average reading speed: 87.99MBps

 

Such tests were made also on Windows 10 system with almost same results. As I said before, the downloading a 700MB file from DSM to Windows desktop takes 2 minutes.

 

What other data or tests shall I provide to try help both of us having absolutely same HP servers and issue with slow read speeds?

 

 

 

2021-03-02_15-12-56.png

2021-03-02_15-10-53.png

2021-03-02_15-08-44.png

Edited by reDDevil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2021 at 1:53 PM, flyride said:

Check network link speeds, network masks, patch cables, terminations, and gateway/routing if applicable.

 

On 3/1/2021 at 8:10 AM, flyride said:

For example, full description of your network design, hardware, hosts with IP addresses, netmasks, gateways, etc would be a start.

  • Please post the IP addresses, gateways and network masks of your XPe NAS, your Mac and your TS5400R.
  • Are you configuring static devices or DHCP assigned? If DHCP, what device is providing DHCP?
  • What protocol are you using to access the NAS on your Mac?  CIFS, NFS, AppleTalk?
  • Are you trying to use Jumbo Frames on any of your devices?

We need to establish confidence that we have no obscure issues with the network. Incorrect masks, inconsistent frame sizes or intermittent routing can cause issues like you are describing.

 

Here are a few discovery items you can do. Please post results of all:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thank you very much for your reply with a try to resolve my issue. Here are the all requested data:

 

1 час назад, flyride сказал:

Please post the IP addresses, gateways and network masks of your XPe NAS, your Mac and your TS5400R.

HP Ex485: 192.168.1.30
iMac: 192.168.1.112
TS5400R: 192.168.1.10

Gateway (router): 192.168.1.1
Mask: 255.255.255.0

 

1 час назад, flyride сказал:

Are you configuring static devices or DHCP assigned? If DHCP, what device is providing DHCP?

 

HP Ex485 and TS5400R are set to work in DHCP mode, however, the router has the reservation to provide a fixed specific IP addresses according to their MACs.

iMac is in simple DHCP mode

 

1 час назад, flyride сказал:

What protocol are you using to access the NAS on your Mac?  CIFS, NFS, AppleTalk?

 

DSM offers the choice of using SMB, AFP and NFS file protocols. I'm using AFP & SMB. When connecting from iMac to DSM, using Finder, AFP protocol is used.

If I connect DSM server manually through SMB (ie smb://192.168.1.30), the connection in DSM is indicated as CIFS and the read speed is just only about 200KBps (instead of 5MBps through AFP)

 

But again I must to say that read speed problem from DSM is not only on iMac. I have also a Windows 10 desktop with the same problem. Also both of my SMART-TVs can not play normally any video file with even 700MB of size

 

 

1 час назад, flyride сказал:

Are you trying to use Jumbo Frames on any of your devices?

Not sure I can answer this question precisely, as I'm not certain how to properly check it. However, checking via network adapter in the system settings, I see the following: The configuration is "Automatically". Though it doesn't specifically mentions jumbo frames, it is not used as far as I'm concerned. If I'm wrong, could you be so kind to direct me where to check it, please?

photo_2021-03-02_22-46-26.thumb.jpg.eff002f561711bd2d8bc44110abc33f7.jpg

 

1 час назад, flyride сказал:

From the DSM command line, run cat /proc/mdstat

 

 

reDDevil@HPex485:~$ cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [raidF1] 
md2 : active raid5 sda5[0] sdc5[2] sdb5[1]
      1943862912 blocks super 1.2 level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [3/3] [UUU]
      
md3 : active raid1 sdd3[0]
      2925444544 blocks super 1.2 [1/1] [U]
      
md1 : active raid1 sda2[0] sdb2[1] sdc2[2] sdd2[3]
      2097088 blocks [12/4] [UUUU________]
      
md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdb1[1] sdc1[2] sdd1[3]
      2490176 blocks [12/4] [UUUU________]
      
unused devices: <none>

 

 

1 час назад, flyride сказал:

From the DSM command line, run sudo ping -f -c 83333 -s 1472 IP       (where IP is the IP address of your Mac)

 

reDDevil@HPex485:~$ sudo ping -f -c 83333 -s 1472 192.168.1.112
Password: 
PING 192.168.1.112 (192.168.1.112) 1472(1500) bytes of data.
..............................^C
--- 192.168.1.112 ping statistics ---
42631 packets transmitted, 27000 received, 36% packet loss, time 215687ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.209/0.306/0.561/0.035 ms, ipg/ewma 5.059/0.323 ms

 

The ping is not good as I can see with 36% of lost packets 😕

 

This is the same command to my Windows desktop:

 

reDDevil@HPex485:~$ sudo ping -f -c 83333 -s 1472 192.168.1.104
PING 192.168.1.104 (192.168.1.104) 1472(1500) bytes of data.
.^C
--- 192.168.1.104 ping statistics ---
31963 packets transmitted, 31962 received, 0% packet loss, time 9927ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.143/0.277/11.408/0.099 ms, ipg/ewma 0.310/0.274 ms

 

 

 

1 час назад, flyride сказал:

Hostilian's benchmark test on your CPU and array:

 

reDDevil@HPex485:~$ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1024 | md5sum
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 2.86019 s, 375 MB/s
cd573cfaace07e7949bc0c46028904ff  -

 

reDDevil@HPex485:~$ sudo dd bs=1M count=256 if=/dev/zero of=/volume1/video conv=fdatasync
256+0 records in
256+0 records out
268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 2.67346 s, 100 MB/s

 

Edited by reDDevil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2021 at 12:09 PM, reDDevil said:

However, checking via network adapter in the system settings, I see the following: The configuration is "Automatically". Though it doesn't specifically mentions jumbo frames, it is not used as far as I'm concerned. If I'm wrong, could you be so kind to direct me where to check it, please?

 

If you changed from "Automatically" MTU would probably have an entry for Jumbo frames.  If you aren't trying to use Jumbo anywhere, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

On 3/2/2021 at 12:09 PM, reDDevil said:
On 3/2/2021 at 10:39 AM, flyride said:

From the DSM command line, run sudo ping -f -c 83333 -s 1472 IP       (where IP is the IP address of your Mac)

 




reDDevil@HPex485:~$ sudo ping -f -c 83333 -s 1472 192.168.1.112
Password: 
PING 192.168.1.112 (192.168.1.112) 1472(1500) bytes of data.
..............................^C
--- 192.168.1.112 ping statistics ---
42631 packets transmitted, 27000 received, 36% packet loss, time 215687ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.209/0.306/0.561/0.035 ms, ipg/ewma 5.059/0.323 ms

 

The ping is not good as I can see with 36% of lost packets 😕

 

This should nominally be 0% loss and is probably a serious issue. But the point of the test was to get some data showing how long it takes to move some data without any protocols or configuration options to get in the way, and you aborted each test with a Control-C.  So let's repeat with one that goes a little faster:

 

$ sudo ping -v -f -c 1000 -s 65507 IP

 

Also, can you also do this on the TS-5400R to the Mac?

 

On 3/2/2021 at 12:09 PM, reDDevil said:



reDDevil@HPex485:~$ dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1024 | md5sum
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 2.86019 s, 375 MB/s
cd573cfaace07e7949bc0c46028904ff  -

 




reDDevil@HPex485:~$ sudo dd bs=1M count=256 if=/dev/zero of=/volume1/video conv=fdatasync
256+0 records in
256+0 records out
268435456 bytes (268 MB) copied, 2.67346 s, 100 MB/s

 

CPU looks fine. 

Disk is a write test but is a good baseline as that is usually the slowest operation.  You have a three-drive array, and this result is pretty slow but may be the performance of the 1TB drives. What exact model Seagate disks?

 

Please repeat the test with a larger data set, such as:

 

$ sudo dd bs=1M count=512 if=/dev/zero of=/volume1/video conv=fdatasync

 

Then you can follow up with a read test:

 

$ echo 3 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
$ dd if=/volume1/video of=/dev/null bs=8k

 

What is the other disk (/dev/sdd) used for?  Is that a Basic Storage Pool or something else?

Edited by flyride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 часов назад, flyride сказал:

This should nominally be 0% loss and is probably a serious issue. But the point of the test was to get some data showing how long it takes to move some data, and you aborted each test with a Control-C without any protocols or configuration options to get in the way.  So let's repeat with one that goes a little faster:

 

$ sudo ping -v -f -c 1000 -s 65507 IP

 

reDDevil@HPex485:~$ sudo ping -v -f -c 1000 -s 65507 192.168.1.112
ping: socket: Permission denied, attempting raw socket...
ping: socket: Protocol not supported, attempting raw socket...
PING 192.168.1.112 (192.168.1.112) 65507(65535) bytes of data.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
--- 192.168.1.112 ping statistics ---
1000 packets transmitted, 750 received, 25% packet loss, time 4720ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.437/1.754/2.848/0.243 ms, ipg/ewma 4.725/1.735 ms

 

Ping to Windows desktop:

 

reDDevil@HPex485:~$ sudo ping -v -f -c 1000 -s 65507 192.168.1.104
Password: 
ping: socket: Permission denied, attempting raw socket...
ping: socket: Protocol not supported, attempting raw socket...
PING 192.168.1.104 (192.168.1.104) 65507(65535) bytes of data.
 
--- 192.168.1.104 ping statistics ---
1000 packets transmitted, 1000 received, 0% packet loss, time 1679ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.378/1.505/1.718/0.058 ms, ipg/ewma 1.681/1.505 ms

 

Unfortunately I do not have root access to my TS5400R and it is not easy for my knowledge to obtain that, so at the moment I can not make ping from there.

I think we should set aside a ping to iMac issue for the moment. As you can see, there is absolutely 100% ping to Windows desktop but read speed from DSM is even two times worse. First test with HP, second with TS5400R

 

 

lanspeed_hp.jpg.24061db95e6f58af13e0f1dbaa934655.jpg

 

lanspeed_bf.jpg.131abd6ce87df4f8725af05225aa45cf.jpg

 

 

6 часов назад, flyride сказал:

Disk is a write test but is a good baseline as that is usually the slowest operation.  You have a three-drive array, and this result is pretty slow but may be the performance of the 1TB drives. What exact model Seagate disks?

 

Well, I wrote before my HDD setup with disk models and read results from both pools but I will repeat it once again here as requested with pleasure:

I have a BASIC storage pool with single 3TB Seagate HDD ST3000DM001

 

Also I have SHR storage pool of DSM created from three 1TB disks:
WD1002FBYS

WD1002FBYS

ST1000NM0008

 

I would like to add that these disks were used perfectly in my HPex485 under Windows Server 2012 before I made a decision to migrate to DSM. Without any issue to read speed. I used it as a media server and I could stream 4K movies to my Smart-TVs without any interruptions. With DSM I can not watch even 360p videos

 

6 часов назад, flyride сказал:

Please repeat the test with a larger data set, such as:

 

$ sudo dd bs=1M count=512 if=/dev/zero of=/volume1/video conv=fdatasync


 

reDDevil@HPex485:~$ sudo dd bs=1M count=512 if=/dev/zero of=/volume1/video conv=fdatasync
Password: 
512+0 records in
512+0 records out
536870912 bytes (537 MB) copied, 4.26279 s, 126 MB/s

 

 

6 часов назад, flyride сказал:

$ echo 3 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
$ dd if=/volume1/video of=/dev/null bs=8k

 

reDDevil@HPex485:~$ echo 3 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
3
reDDevil@HPex485:~$ dd if=/volume1/video of=/dev/null bs=8k
65536+0 records in
65536+0 records out
536870912 bytes (537 MB) copied, 2.52697 s, 212 MB/s

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose that there is a problem with the driver of LAN adapter for my HP ex485 which DSM is trying to use. I would like to try the external USB Lan adapter with AX88179 chipset to confirm or reject that guess but have no idea how to make a try of it. Simple plug & play doesn't work - the DSM doesn't run with that adapter in USB port. Since HP is a headless server I can not check what is going wrong there at the time of boot. Also probably this is a problem of Sata driver which DSM is trying to use with my hardware. But have no idea how to check it :(

 

Here is the thread of users of HP ex490 installed DSM without any complaints of reading speed (excluding mine)

https://xpenology.com/forum/topic/13343-tutorial-install-dsm-62-on-hp-mediasmart-ex485-or-ex490/

 

But reading this post I understand that ex490 and ex485 use different LAN drivers

http://www.mediasmartserver.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14496

 

I then modified /etc/network/interfaces to include an entry for enp3s0, the Realtek driver that 16.04 uses for the 490/495(the 485 uses enp2s0, fwiw)

 

 

Edited by reDDevil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, reDDevil said:

I think we should set aside a ping to iMac issue for the moment.

 

25% packet loss is very bad.  I know you don't want to address it, but there is a real problem here which could point to physical port or cable that needs fixing.  Dropped packets = TCP retries = timeouts = slowness.

 

10 hours ago, reDDevil said:

1000 packets transmitted, 750 received, 25% packet loss, time 4720ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.437/1.754/2.848/0.243 ms, ipg/ewma 4.725/1.735 ms

 

1000 packets transmitted, 1000 received, 0% packet loss, time 1679ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.378/1.505/1.718/0.058 ms, ipg/ewma 1.681/1.505 ms

 

What we are doing here is using PING as a rudimentary bandwidth estimator by pumping a lot of large packets in flood mode to the interface.  This simulates the data transfer that would be occurring during a NAS read operation, without any protocol (ICMP, but that is very simple compared to CIFS or AFP).

 

65535 byte packets * 1000 * 2 (send/receive) = 131,070,000 bytes = 125MB / 4720ms = 26.48Mbps to Mac (this includes the dropped packet time)

125MB / 1679 = 74.45MBps to Windows, which is very close to what I get testing with multiple Gbe-connected computers.

 

Looking at the individual averages, 1.754ms for 65535 bytes *2 (send/receive) = 71.8MBps and 1.505ms is 83.1MBps, respectively. When a packet isn't dropped, bandwidth is approximately normal.

 

10 hours ago, reDDevil said:

reDDevil@HPex485:~$ sudo dd bs=1M count=512 if=/dev/zero of=/volume1/video conv=fdatasync
536870912 bytes (537 MB) copied, 4.26279 s, 126 MB/s

 

reDDevil@HPex485:~$ echo 3 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
reDDevil@HPex485:~$ dd if=/volume1/video of=/dev/null bs=8k
536870912 bytes (537 MB) copied, 2.52697 s, 212 MB/s

 

This is on the slow side of normal, especially since your drives are 7200rpm/Enterprise models.  But the read test results double the write performance is typical. Drive performance is not the issue.  Side note: not a factor here, but the single drive /dev/sdd is a SMR drive which is not ideal for NAS use.

 

What does all this tell us?

 

We validated the basic networking configuration (no issues apparent there) and have performed low-level tests on the network and disk hardware. With the significant exception of the packet drops sending data to the Mac, the results are all essentially normal.

 

You believe you have a network driver problem but the results do not implicate the hardware or hardware drivers. This suggests a physical network issue or a protocol/configuration problem (however, I would absolutely try an extra.lzma with a newer network driver version if faced with your results).

 

Suggestions for next steps:

 

First, correct whatever is causing the packet drops. If it continues, it skews test results and makes it difficult to objectively evaluate tests or changes.  Then, I would try tests comparing both Windows and Mac using other protocols, like FTP, NFS or even just downloading directly from DSM File Station.  It would be interesting if you can isolate the poor performance to a specific file protocol.

Edited by flyride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...