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

WRTSL54GS usb to lan speed..

Discussion in 'HyperWRT Firmware' started by booyoo, Mar 18, 2007.

  1. booyoo

    booyoo Network Guru Member

    Hi there, can others share their file copying speed between the usb attached drive and a wired lan on the inside interface? Whether using file copy or FTP access, the speed on my setup (running XP) tops at 2MB/sec which seems awfully slow for ethernet..
    Thanks
     
  2. ifican

    ifican Network Guru Member

    I have not run it against a throughput tester but mine is somewhere in that range as well.
     
  3. frenchy2k1

    frenchy2k1 LI Guru Member

    you are not limited by the LAN speed, but by the USB speed.
    Although the USB port is USB2.0, read/write speed depends on the host controller, CPU and media connected.
     
  4. HeyNoPie

    HeyNoPie LI Guru Member

    What is the speed when you connect your USB drive directly to your PC? If it is significantly faster, then it might be worth looking into, but my guess is that you will see it is about the same speed as over the LAN. As Frenchy mentioned, the USB drive speed is probably the limiting factor.
     
  5. ifican

    ifican Network Guru Member

    No for some reason write speed to the wrtsl54gs is not the greatest, it is significantly slower then directly connected but still works well.
     
  6. Toxic

    Toxic Administrator Staff Member

    The problem is your copying over from a possible windows machine to linux over USB there will always be a bottleneck. better to use ftp when copying stuff across to any HD on the SL.
     
  7. plugh

    plugh Network Guru Member

    Given how CPU intensive USB2 hdd's are, in conjunction with the samba server's processing, I suspect the sl54 just doesn't have enough cycles.

    When pulling from sl54 usb hdd to XP via smb, the XP Task Manager's networking graph shows I get 25-30% utilization.

    When pulling from a "NAS disk" (Argosy HD-363N - 186 class cpu) to XP via smb, graph shows 40-45% network utilization.

    When pulling from firewire disk on W2K (666MHz celeron) to XP via smb, graph shows 65-70% network utilization.

    Network is all 100BT direct wired cat5e.
     
  8. booyoo

    booyoo Network Guru Member

    So I ran the tests using FTP and here are the results:
    1. drive hooked up directly to USB port on PC - 10.7MB/sec (not FTP)
    2. PC -> SL (NTFS partition) - 1.4MB/sec
    3. PC -> SL (FAT32 partition) - 2.6MB/sec
    4. SL (NTFS partition) -> PC - 1.5MB/sec
    5. SL (FAT32 partition) -> PC - 2.0MB/sec
    Looks like its 'easier' for the box to manage FAT partitions but in any case it seems quite poor. I really do hope that the WRT350N will yield better results. Would be nice to be limited by the speed of the wifi rather then by the USB handling. Do NAS boxes exhibit similar performance or a built-in drive makes a world of difference in this case?
     
  9. translucent

    translucent LI Guru Member

    The usb direct write performance of the wrtsl54gs is much better:

    # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/foreign_shares/FAT_1/delme bs=1024 count=1M1048576+0 records in
    1048576+0 records out
    real 2m 54.97s
    user 0m 6.29s
    sys 1m 3.89s

    > bc -i
    bc 1.06
    Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
    This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
    For details type `warranty'.
    2^30/(2*60+54.97)
    6136719

    i.e. 6,136,719 Bytes/sec
     
  10. booyoo

    booyoo Network Guru Member

    Hi, is that only theoretical or is there a practical thing I can do to achieve these speeds from the XP box outside the router?
     
  11. translucent

    translucent LI Guru Member

    No, its not theoretical. It's a measured transfer rate of the router doing USB writes to a HDD, comparable to your "drive hooked up directly to USB port on PC".
    Your write rate from "XP box outside the router" will be less. The WRTSL54GS is fine for shared pictures, music, low bandwidth video, or overnight backup cron jobs; however, it's definately not a high performance file server. If you need to share large files, I'd recommend compressing them locally first.
     

Share This Page