1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

WRTSL54GS: about hard drive performance

Discussion in 'Cisco/Linksys Wireless Routers' started by mw1001, Jun 18, 2007.

  1. mw1001

    mw1001 Network Guru Member

    Hi everybody,

    I made some performance tests involving the hard drive in my WRTSL54GS. I like to share the results, and ask if this is the best this unit can do.

    To transfer 4.17GB from my desktop to WRT’s HD took about 18 minutes.
    The reverse (WRTSL -> Desktop) took 22 minutes for the same files when WRT’S HD is formatted with any linux file system (EXT2, EXT3 or Reserfs). If the file system is NTFS is need more time.

    I monitored the network activity with DU Meter. The upload bandwidth (from desktop to WRT) is about 35mbps and the download (from WRT to desktop) is about 28-29mbps when formatted with linux file system. If the external HD is formatted with NTFS the download (WRT -> desktop) is only about 22-23mbps.

    This is the best performance possible?

    My WRTSL is running with Thibor17rc3 and the HD is a Seagate 7200.10 320gb (ST3320620AS) and the external enclosure is from Cooler Mater (X craft RX-3SB SATA to eSATA/USB 2.0).

    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. vincentfox

    vincentfox Network Guru Member

    Did you log onto the router and look at the output of top? That should clear things up for you.
     
  3. mw1001

    mw1001 Network Guru Member

    Yes. The load average is very high: above 2.5 reading and above 5 when writing.

    I’m just asking if this is the best performance because this can be some incompatibility from the unit with the HD enclosure (everything is possible :p).

    Regards.
     
  4. vincentfox

    vincentfox Network Guru Member

    With those load averages you are most likely running into the limits of the CPU.

    The program iostat would show if I/O channels is 100% busy or not, but I don't know if that's available in any of the tiny firmware for these devices.

    A tiny device like this with very minimal CPU isn't going to compete with a full PC as far as filesharing. It's good only for casual use.
     
  5. frenchy2k1

    frenchy2k1 LI Guru Member

    no, this is consistent with other tests reported here.
    Moreover, this is about right for what the unit was designed for: the bandwidth is about the same as the wireless network you can use to access it.
     

Share This Page