Does Linkstation Pro Duo really work with Gigabit network?
I recently purchased Buffalo Linkstation Pro Duo 2TB and connected to Windows Vista and XP PC with 1000Mbps Gigabit LAN and Cat6 Cable
However Data transfer speed rates are under Always 90Mbps.
Average transfer speed is 75-85Mbps which is 9-11MB/sec
12.6MB/sec is the Maximum speed that I got.
1000 Mbps Gigabit NAS data transfer speed should be around 50-80% of maximum speed which is 60-100MB/sec.
I have tested with 1GB file size and also set transfer frame to Jumbo frame. Firmware version is the latest 3.0.9
I have read and searched about this issue in Buffalo forum and throughout internet. A lot of people have complained about slow speed of Linkstation Pro Duo BUT, nobody has solved yet. I have tried a lot of ways to solve this problem But, I couldn't get it. In the Buffalo forum, Colin137 answered Just general knowledge of NAS but he has not given clean solution. He said 80% of transfer speed is normal, but I get only 8% of 1000 Mbps
Even though Linkstation Pro Duo has 10/100/1000 Mbps data transfer rate specifition, I don't think Buffalo Linkstation Pro Duo support 1000 Mbps transfer speed. Only supports 1000 Mbps "link connection"
Buffalo Tech MUST take out 1000Mbps transfer speed from their specification. It is Absolutely lie. Otherwise they should fix this problem.
I have found interesting Article about Buffalo Linkstation Pro Duo Performance compare to other NAS
Please see Buffalo LS Pro duo's speed result is ranked 58th out of 58 NAS.
1000 Mbps 4K Jumbo Average Read Performance
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_nas/Itemid,190/chart,19/
1000 Mbps 4K Jumbo RAID1 Average Read Performance
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_nas/Itemid,190/chart,37/
You can choose other result by selecting drop down menu on the top.
Data transfer result is around 9-11MB/s
Does anyone get 50-80% of 1000 Mbps data transfer speed with LS Pro Duo ?Does any Buffalo developer, tech support or engineer get more than 100 Mbps Transfer speed? 'm asking transfer speed, not a "link" speed
If yes, Please solve this problem. Otherwise Buffalo Tech MUST take out 1000Mbps transfer speed from their specification.
I think I am totally deceived into buying such a thing.
Thanks,
Did Buffalo specify what the average transfer rate is? No, because it will be different for all users based on their network.
I don't expect that 1000 Mbps is an average transfer speed and I understand that all users network environment are different. I am just expecting 30-70% of transfer rates like other NASes. But Buffalo LS Pro duo's transfer rates are only 7-8% of their transfer speed specification(when 1000 Mbps connection). Even though 1000 Mbps is not an average speed, the transfer rate should be 30-70% of their specification.
According to your answer, all of users network are different. If network setting or environment is optimized for this LS pro duo NAS, is it possible to get 30%-70% of gigabit connection?
If yes, How can we set up network configuration?-especilly direct connectionwith PC.
If not, Buffalo tech must take out 1000 Mbps from Date transfer rate specification.
Data transfer rates and link speed is different.
last, again, Please clear answer for users.
Is Buffalo LS pro duo possible to get data transfer speed more than 13MB/sec with 1000Mbps connection? (which is 10% of gigabit transfer speed)
I'm not aksing general posibility of all users. If it is possible in one specific network environment, that's fine.
If yes, Can you provide us proof and how to set up?
In no, Please change specification.
YES? or No?
Did Buffalo specify what the average transfer rate is? No, because it will be different for all users based on their network.
Of course Data transfer rate of product specificion is not an average.
However, when people buy NAS, they expect data transfer rates at least 50% of link speed.
But Buffalo tech LS pro duo's transfer rates are only 7-8% of its specfication.
According your answer, it will be different for all users based on their network. If so, Does anyONE can get transfer rates more than 8% of 1000 Mbps? Is it possible?
Yes? or No?
Buffalo tech must explain that data transfer perpormance can get only 7-8% when 1000 Mbps connection in the product information.
This is what in the product information
Data Transfer Rates 10 / 100 / 1000 Mbps
1000 Mbps means just connection and is not about transfer rates.
Does anyone get data transfer rates more than 13MB/s with 1000 Mbps connection?
I have to agree with kevin, the transfer speed is really poor. With a 100Mbps switch i was gettin 7MB/s of speed. that is pretty good for a 100Mbs connection at ~70% rate.
Then i replaced with switch with a 1000Mbps switch. I was gettin about 11MB/s of speed.
Before purchaing the linkstation quad, i had purchased iomega istore 2tb. I had the similar performance for data transfer. so i returned it and hoped linkstation will give me higher transfer speed.
considering 1000Mbps is 10 times faster than 100Mbps. a gain of 4 is poor. I expect the speed to be atleast around 20MB/s range. so i that i feel like it was worth the money for the gigabit switch as well =).obvesiouly we upgrade to gigabit switch in an effort to see double the speed of 100Mbps. In terms of network traffic, It was only the linkstation and a pc connected to the switch at the time of testing.
I defenitnly think this needs improvement, instead of saying "when did we say this or that"
Oh wow, this from a moderator
Ok, seeing how I have many network file servers, I got my terastation about a year ago, it's now running firmware 2.16.
When I bought it, ($800) I thought, ok how hard is it, some drives, nic, OS, simple thing these file servers are.
I've been doing networks and file servers for 15 years. I know a little something about them.
Now I know the drives in the NAS is not all that slow, they will do at least 100MB/sec I've tested this.
Setup, config (i've done all of them JBOD, Raid1, Raid5) and by default it will only do around 12-15MB(megabytes) per second. Out right silly slow speed at gigabit network speed.
I have a network switch that is 4 months old and I know for a fact it supports Jumbo Frames (and is turned on). Let's never mind my homebuilt fileserver that doesn't even need Jumbo Frames and it will do 120MB/sec easy.
This isn't some hard thing to figure out or something. For some reason the terastation is just slow. It seems as if all it can do is 100Mb speed (@ 10MB/sec) Gigabit networking 1000Mb = 100MB/sec This device should be able to do at least 70-90MB/sec raid5 should max it out @ 100MB/sec
That said, here is what happened once. I was flipping the FTP server off and on, and did something, i can not repeat for some reason that did for about a month it was doing true Gigabit speeds 100-150/MB/sec After I moved and I had to reset it all, I have not been able to repeat this.
7MB/s is slower than my 4x86DX2 would transfer files LOL I have a net book that will do transfers in the 40 - 60MB/sec range and that's using a laptop harddrive.
There is no excuse why these terastations have such poor networking. Not to mention I have seen mine do the true 1000Mb speeds! So i know it's a simple configuration problem in the firmware!
I'll tell ya another thing, I have now bought two of these terastations, 1-1TB and a 1-2TB one. Both do the same thing. You can count on me NOT buying another one unless I see these network issues fixed. Because for the money, I should just upgrade/make a real fileserver that i can easily upgrade at any time.
I sure hope Buffalo gets it's act together.
I have the 6TB linkstation and am getting 9-11MB transfers. This is very disappointing. And seeing answers like "it will transfer files over a Gigabit network" is almost like selling what looks like a sports care and saying It can travel at speeds up to 200MPH....if you push it off a cliff, otherwards you can go 20MPH. Very shadey answer.
I can only agree what everyone write above the linkstation pro is incredible slow.. I have had mine for a few month now and im angry about it... I like everything about the produkt except the speed it can in no way reach the speeds that buffalo write on their webpage
High speed Data Transfer of up to 66MB/s
Well no matter what i do, or what hardware i use, or even when i connect the linkstation to a top professional company network and have a friend of mine that is a network administrator fool around with it, then he can also not get it to do more than 11mb/s just the same as my home network... Im very well aware of how you mesure these kind of speeds ect. ( just read the forum above there are some good writen explanations )
Formatting my 2TB harddrive take more than 24 houres, and copying 900GB of backup data take arround 4-5 days to complete........
Im also very well aware that some file types are faster to transfer than others, but still the linkstation pro is incredible slow. and do not live up to what the buffalotech say....
I will soon contact the Danish Consumer agency to have them look into the problem with the buffalon linkstation pro and tell them that buffalo are using fake advertising when they claim speed of 66MB/s is possible.
Just look at this forum how many people complain about this... I hope they will write a legal letter to buffalo saying they should refund any person who want to retur their product.
Once i hear from the Danish(Denmark) goverment consumer agency i will write the result here on the forum, but it will take some time they are working slow.
"Oh wow, this from a moderator
Ok, seeing how I have many network file servers, I got my terastation about a year ago, it's now running firmware 2.16."
Terastations are not file servers, that is probably the reason for your confusion.
"There is no excuse why these terastations have such poor networking. Not to mention I have seen mine do the true 1000Mb speeds! So i know it's a simple configuration problem in the firmware!"
Really? What kind of speeds were you getting (really gigabit or just close)? Ill see if I can do some testing with the configurations.
Seriously, SHAME ON YOU!!!!
This can't be for real, advertising something that it ain't... SHAME ON YOU
What's the deal with that warning on the firmware update on the Buffalo Link Station Live LS-CHL ? mine was manufactured in oct.2009.
It should be able to perform better. I am disappointed with the transfer speeds myself.
It seems the common "defense" is that these devices are not file servers, but storage devices and as such the performance is within range for that type of device.
So I have to ask : how can it not be a file server, if the device comes with an implemented and ready to use media server?
To me, if it has a media server, it is a file server, since the media server can only serve files.
Wikipedia Defines them as:
"A NAS unit is a computer connected to a network that only provides file-based data storage services to other devices on the network. Although it may technically be possible to run other software on a NAS unit, it is not designed to be a general purpose server. For example, NAS units usually do not have a keyboard or display, and are controlled and configured over the network, often using a browser." From the drawbacks section: "Due to the multiprotocol, and the reduced CPU and OS layer, the NAS has its limitations compared to the DAS/SAN systems. If the NAS is occupied with too many users, too many I/O operations, or CPU processing power that is too demanding, the NAS reaches its limitations. A server system is easily upgraded by adding one or more servers into a cluster, so CPU power can be upgraded, while the NAS is limited to its own hardware, which is in most cases not upgradeable."
"In computing, a file server is a computer attached to a network that has the primary purpose of providing a location for the shared storage of computer files (such as documents, sound files, photographs, movies, images, databases, etc.) that can be accessed by the workstations that are attached to the computer network. The term server highlights the role of the machine in the client-server scheme, where the clients are the workstations using the storage. A file server is usually not performing any calculations, and does not run any programs on behalf of the clients. It is designed primarily to enable the rapid storage and retrieval of data where the heavy computation is provided by the workstations"
It still doesn't answer to the fact of the the low speeds...which is why this topic was opened...yes?!!!!
Why can't i make an update of the frmware 1.24 ? it doesnt accept my serial number...
it only took me 1hour to backup 2.5 GB with Time Machine, and i still have 6.5GB to Go!!!! NOT ACCEPTABLE, and no i'm not using the wireless, im using the ethernet cable...
From your own definition : "A NAS unit is a computer connected to a network that only provides file-based data storage services to other devices on the network."
the Linkstation Pro Duo provides services that exceed file based storage with official firmware version 3.10 :
- web access to folders and files.
- media server, DNLA compatible with integrated database.
- print server.
- disc backup.
- e-mail notification
- ftp server
I mean, a print server is definitely not a file-based data storage service. Neither is a disc backup service or a media server with integrated database.
This device is definitely packed with features and potential, but a lot of that potential is wasted due to the poor network transfer performance.
I put together my own Windows Home Server from a bunch of old parts I had lying around, and it transfers files back and forth 5 times faster than the Linkstation Pro Duo, for the same cost.
And that's a true server that can be configured to run a bunch more services than file based storage services and can be upgraded and expanded in any way I see fit.
-
I won't continue to argue semantics about what you think this unit is (considering we advertise it as a NAS product and not a file server, so its a moot point) but this is also from wiki:
Actual definition: "Network-attached storage (NAS) is file-level computer data storage connected to a computer network providing data access to heterogeneous network clients."
"Although it may technically be possible to run other software on a NAS unit, it is not designed to be a general purpose server"
I sincerly hope you read the rest of the definition from the first quotes because they tell exactly why there will be a speed difference between a file server and a NAS.
Thank you PC Piranha for clarifying this in the USA forums.
I have decided to dismantle the unit and put both drives in my WHS. It solved my speed problem and I am purring along like a kitten.
PCPiranha wrote:I won't continue to argue semantics about what you think this unit is (considering we advertise it as a NAS product and not a file server, so its a moot point) but this is also from wiki:
Actual definition: "Network-attached storage (NAS) is file-level computer data storage connected to a computer network providing data access to heterogeneous network clients."
"Although it may technically be possible to run other software on a NAS unit, it is not designed to be a general purpose server"
I sincerly hope you read the rest of the definition from the first quotes because they tell exactly why there will be a speed difference between a file server and a NAS.
OK I posted about this in another thread that the mods didn't answer so I'll jump in here. You can try and argue this until you are blue in the face, but according to the LS ProDuo specs on YOUR website:
| Data Transfer Rates | 10 / 100 / 1000 Mbps |
So you are implying gigabit throughput. I can only get 11-12 MB/sec to or from the LS Duo WITH NO OTHER NETWORK TRAFFIC. I get 45-65 MB/sec between the 2 pc's on my network which I think we can all agree is normal for a gigabit network. There is NO excuse for you to publish the above spec KNOWING the performance is not there. If I had known about this in advance I never would have bought this unit.
"OK I posted about this in another thread that the mods didn't answer so I'll jump in here. You can try and argue this until you are blue in the face, but according to the LS ProDuo specs on YOUR website:"
My arguments were more towards the difference between a file server and a NAS. I will forward this thread to our advertising department for evaluation.
We are stating the industry standard specification of the ports on the LS Pro Duo.
LAN Interface
Data Transfer Rates 10 / 100 / 1000 Mbps
This lists the industry standard hardware specification of the LAN interface, and we build the LS Pro Duo, LS-WTGL/R1 (3) with a 10/100/1000Mbps NIC.
We also state:
USB Interface
Standard Compliance USB 2.0
Connector Type A type
Number of Ports* 2
Data Transfer Rates Max: 480 Mbps
This lists the industry standard specification for USB2.0 and we build the LS Pro Duo, LS-WTGL/R1 (3) with USB 2.0 ports.
Memoryman wrote:We are stating the industry standard specification of the ports on the LS Pro Duo.
LAN Interface
Data Transfer Rates 10 / 100 / 1000 Mbps
This lists the industry standard hardware specification of the LAN interface, and we build the LS Pro Duo, LS-WTGL/R1 (3) with a 10/100/1000Mbps NIC.
If the LS is built with a GigE NIC then why the slow throughput? Everything else on my network, and anything else I may plug in has transfer rates in the 45-65MB/sec range as would be expected on a gigabit network. The LS, however, is an agonizingly slow MAX of 12 MB/sec. If the LS box has the hardware to reach gigabit speeds I can only assume the firmware is the culprit, and if so shame on you for not making such an easy fix. Like I said before I tested mine with no other network traffic, with each MTU setting, so there is no valid excuse from Buffalo.
The speed limitation is due to the processor.
PCPiranha wrote:The speed limitation is due to the processor.
Why on earth would Buffalo do this? You put 7200 rpm SATA drives and a GigE NIC in the box, and then use a processor that creates a bottleneck? This is inexcusable and bordering on criminal because you advertise these capabilities.
So how do I get my money back? I have owned it too long for the store to take it back. The ONLY reason I bought this was to store and stream large video files, which, by the way, stutter like crazy if they are HD. I chose the LS because you advertise it as 1) a gigabit device and 2) as a media server. It does not deliver on #1 obviously, nor on #2 because it is so ridiculously slow. I would like to know who I need to speak with to send this worthless NAS back and get a check from Buffalo.
"This is inexcusable and bordering on criminal because you advertise these capabilities."
As memoryman stated, those were the specs of the LAN interface.
"So how do I get my money back? I have owned it too long for the store to take it back.."
I can try and speak to someone for you, but I am doubtful that I will get any sort of response that you find satisfactory as we don't offer refunds. I apologize for the inconvenience.
PCPiranha wrote:"This is inexcusable and bordering on criminal because you advertise these capabilities."
As memoryman stated, those were the specs of the LAN interface.
"So how do I get my money back? I have owned it too long for the store to take it back.."
I can try and speak to someone for you, but I am doubtful that I will get any sort of response that you find satisfactory as we don't offer refunds. I apologize for the inconvenience.
But the published specs did not include the fact that the processor is a dog and will cause a bottleneck. This position is indefensible by you guys and I am quite frankly disgusted by the whole thing. ALL my friends and family come to me for advice on computers and you can guarantee they won't be purchasing from you. There is an old saying in marketing "Make a customer happy and he'll tell his friends, make a customer mad and he'll tell everyone"
Hi PCPiranha,
I'm a fulltime freelance IT integrator and have been happily servicing a handful of companies for the last 10 years. I have installed/configured five LS-WTGL/R1-V3 (LinksStation Pro Duo LS-W2.0TGL/R1) in 2009. Each of the five Linkstations is installed at separate/unrelated companies. One of the five Linkstations is installed at my office. I use all five Buffalo linkstations solely for backup imaging workstations using Acronis Imaging software. Of the five linkstations, four of the five linkstations provide acceptable speed performance. The fifth linkstation is installed at my office and runs incredibly slow, compared to the other four. I contacted buffalo support and received an RMA. Buffalo returned the repaired buffalo today. It now transfers files twice as fast, but still noticeably slower than the other four. The ONLY difference between this slow Linkstation and the other four fast Linkstations, is the hard drives. The slow Linkstation has Hitachi HDT721010SLA360 hard drives. The four fast linkstations have Western Digital drives. This cannot be a coincidence. My one year warranty will expire in ten days. Please help me contact the right person at Buffalo support who has the authority to OK changing my Hitachi drives to Western Digital or Seagate. Thanks.
PCPirannah:
I just remote logged into one of the other fast running Linkstations to double check system differences between fast and slow Linkstation. I was wrong. The fast Linkstation is also running Hitachi drives HDT721010SLA360.
The only difference is the firmware version. The fast Linkstation is running F/W 3.09. The slow Linkstation is running F/W 3.10. So yes, the slower Linkstation is running a newer firmware version. I updated the firmware version on the slow Linkstation, but no improvement. Still slow Web Admin login and transfer rate. Any ideas? I'm going to contact buffalo support again.
Yeppers,
Had you checked to see if your network system is at fault here? Did you confirm hooking up one of those faster Linkstations to your own local network and confirm it is indeed your own Linkstation that is causing the problem? Also, have you turned on all the media serving capabilities of your Linkstation? My experience has been that office NAS are used to serve files with no media files installed, whereas the same NAS that is serving in a small business office often served both home media (music/photos etc) as well as files and that the NAS could be busy aggregating those files into the database while serving your files and hence will run slower than a dedicated file serving NAS. Since NAS products with their power savings advantage using slow processors will have a harder time processing those same photos, which will ultimately slow down the whole NAS unit. This is inherent in all NAS products from Synology, Pogo Plug and Linkstations etc!
I would like to add and dispel a few misunderstandings in regards to NAS units.
NAS is a network storage device, which allows the user to store files and stream/retrieve and backup from a local to a remote location. The speed of the NAS is more difficult to quantity, because unlike a USB drive, a NAS can speak many different networking protocols and thus depending on your computer and network setup as well as the operating system used, they can all inhibit somewhat on your networking speed. Secondly, NAS units are designed to be power savers, so they are a tradeoff between good processing power vs power consumption. Unlike a file server where power consumption is no object, a NAS operates at substantially lower power threshold compared to what the functions the NAS unit (Linkstation) is asked to do. I run a file server as well, but it sucks in 7x more power compared to all my NAS units combined! This is the same deal you get running a 1.6Ghz netbook. Most people thought a 1.6Ghz netbook will run their games, applications and HD video like their own Core i5 or Core i7 desktops or laptops. Unfortunately, many of these folks bought netbooks with false presumptions!
If you look at all the other offerings from Netgear, Synology, Qnap etc..., you won't start seeing capable file server performance NAS units until you hit about $800 to $1000 range or higher, but by that time, it would make better sense to build a basic Core i5 based file server and do that and some people do. However, a server is not a cost efficient strategy to serve files locally or remotely for most users like us. So you balance between situating several NAS units for different purposes. I have multiple NAS units all do different things they are good at while maintaining price point efficient as well as power usage efficiency! If I need video files transcoded or recoded, I use my Core i7 Quad machine and served by my Intel Atom server.
DTD,
I'm testing my network connections now. After the current throughput test finishes running, I'm going to run it again through a different smart switch.
I ONLY use this NAS for storing imaged workstations using Acronis business imaging software (Acronis 10 Workstation edition). This NAS is not used to store or transfer music or photos. If my network tests reveal normal results, I plan to take this NAS to another office site, where the buffalo NAS throughput is fast, and test again.
My Linkstation Pro Duo file transfer rate ranges from an agonizing 3.8 MB/sec to a painful 4.5 MB/sec. This is really bad.
Did you disable the "Flow Control" function on your transmitter's NIC? That would be on your computer side (transmitter) or if you use a "managed" smart switch, did you disable the flow control function on its corresponding ports (one to the computer's NIC and the other to the Buffalo Duo Pro?).
The reason why I asked is that in mixed 100/1000M environment with flow control enabled, the slower device can throttle the faster devices to slow down to 100M or throttle down whichever is slowest! Sometimes, just plugging in a 100M or a NAS is enough to cause the throttling effect. Never use the gigabit port on any of those gigabit routers either, because not all gigabit routers provide a true 2000M full duplex throughput. A 5 port managed or unmanaged gigabit switch should say 10Gbps total throughput (2000M x 5; NOT 1000M x 5). If it doesn't say 10Gbps, then the switch itself may only provide a peak throughput of about 1000M or perhaps only 1 to 2 ports are real gigabit, whereas real managed smart switches can provide a nominal throughput of 1000M. Sadly, low cost unmanaged switches and gigabit routers do not provide nominal throughputs whatsoever even though they are advertised as such. Also, gigabit NICs (32bit kinds) coupled with a slow bus speed on most normal consumer level computers can only achieve around 500Mbps avg or less, not gigabit performance even-though it is advertised as gigabit. Unless you've got a really fast bus speed and really fast computer and the Intel Pro gigabit NIC, just be happy with what you've got with your NAS unit or deploy a dual core file server or upgrade the computer's NIC to one that has the ability to disable flow control. If wanting to deploy file server, ensure the NIC is a good commercial grade.
There's a saying. You always get what you paid for!
Hope this helps.
DTD.
Well, just a few items of input based on a few...(well... more than a few)..years dealing with Network Attached Storage.
To the note that NAS devices do not perform well, we have several NAS devices in which we've hits speeds as fast as 400 MB/ps (that's megaBytes, not megabits), in the tens of thousands of IOPS, providing the storage for OLTP Oracle databases via NFS.
So 'poor performance' shouldn't be an assumption of a NAS.
Second, to say that a NAS is not a file server....I know a few companies that would note that a NAS is a 'replacement' for file servers, because it is an appliance that can provide file-serving. We don't have to get into word-games on this one though.
Final item: the Linkstation Pro Duo is a very low-performing device, HOWEVER those that have 'recently' purchased one should realize that as a consumer, you have to do your homework. Some performance reviews online would paint a very clear picture of the limitations of the LS Pro Duo. The other piece is that you should have purchased from a vendor/supplier that offers a return policy. If not, perhaps this will guide future purchase decisions.
Long story short, I agree the LS Pro Duo is not a very effective device given the CPU and RAM limitations, but that's why we have review sites, consumer reports, etc. Nagging and hounding moderators such as PCPiranha and Memoryman isn't going to help your cause, and in some cases, can make you look a bit on the rude site.
I understand buyer frustration more than most, but once and awhile a lesson must be learned. This sounds likely to be one of those lessons, just a bit more expensive than others.
And for the record, many devices support specifications that are of little to no value. I will say that I've seen an LS Pro Duo "BARELY" exceed 100Mbps, so i guess the 1000 connection might provide a very very very slight performance advantage as opposed to the device being limited to 10/100.
---
Hi DTD,
I did what you said, disabled the NIC's 'flow control' and even changed 'link speed & duplex' from Auto Negotiate to '100 Mbps Full Duplex'. Transfer speed on the (intel dual core, 32bit, 3GB RAM, VISTA) went from 1MB/s to 2MB/s. I'm going to replace the intel 82562V-2 NIC.
I tested copy transfer speed from another workstation (intel quad core, 64 bit, 8Gig RAM, windows 7 Ultimate) and got speed of 7MB/s.
I'll follow up and let you know the NAS speed on a different LAN.
Thanks for your help.
Yeppers
Part of the confusion between a NAS and a file server is the fact that we easily assumed WAN and LAN speeds are alike. Unless you are operating a data center with a high speed trunk line, a typical consumer will always have an asymmetrical WAN connection measured in megabits or kilobits and a LAN connection measured usually in 100M or 1Gbps. If we are strictly speaking in WAN terms, then the Pro Duo is a capable WAN server. Yes, NAS is essentially a file server, but what that file serving means depends upon what the customer wants it to do. As a WAN server in a 7.5Mbps down/512kbps up WAN connection, it does its job. If you set up a high powered file server that can do 70 or 100MB/s (that's megaByte per second), what good will it do on a typical consumer WAN when the bottleneck in this case is the WAN itself. Not only that, the power consumption it needs to have the server up is many times more than what it takes to power up the Linkstation itself. However, if you are running a corporate WAN connection with a 100Mb/s line, that's roughly around 12.5MB/s and in which case is what the original poster was commenting of, then we should be looking at high powered NAS servers. But that connection is not cheap and not everyone has a 100Mb/s WAN connection and in some countries, the cost shall we say can be prohibitive!
What the moderators I think are trying to point out is that, NAS boxes are not dedicated LAN file servers. They are WAN first, LAN second it is as long as it can serve media to Xboxes, iPods at relatively good rate for which you do not need large bandwidth. Though companies like Thecus, Netgear, Synology and many others have all introduced NAS servers which are capable of quickly transcoding media files on the fly, serve WAN easily and have the horsepower and RAM to push megabyte of data through the gigabit network very quickly, we should not loose the sight that these servers are designed to serve a different clientele, not the normal computer user whose objective is to host media files or backup through a WAN connection to an off-site location or make an excellent companion to a local file server. Again, the Pro Duo for its all intended purposes does what it is supposed to do over WAN. If you need WAN and LAN performance however, think Thecus or Netgear Pro Pionner or the latest Synology 1010+, but we are not talking about a $199 or a $299 that comes with drives special. They are much much more and they are mostly BYOD (Buy Your Own Disks).
Speaking of the gigabit connection. There's a lot of confusion about gigabit connectivity and that if a NAS has a gigabit connection, it should perform at this rate. However and I think is the main reason for the inclusion of the gigabit connection is to prevent having mix speeds on a gigabit network. This would not again be a problem if the consumer has NICs that allow the ability to adjust the flow control and J-rate and smart switches like the Netgear GS108T or the Cisco/Linksys SLM2008 which again can control bandwidth and flow control and are Layer 2 devices. In reality however, most consumers have un-managed switches of questionable functionality and quality or even layer 1 hubs gigabit in nature. Since everything is automatic in an unmanaged environment, it's better to have NAS devices to have a gigabit port rather than a 100Mb which may throttle down the whole network as soon as the NAS starts pushing or pulling in data. This is merely a convenience and consistency for the consumer level.
Ofcourse for IT capable people, we all use managed switches, but that adds to the cost and consumers will always choose the path of least resistance, which always will be the price tag!
Hope this helps,
DTD.
Just wanted to toss in a comment for the ol' googlers out there and say that yes, my Linkstation Pro Duo only performs at 128Mbps a second where as general windows networking (Windows 7) between to computers on my network is 640Mbps. No, I don't wanna get into an argument as to whether or not there is false advertising...
Buffalo has my money, Buffalo also has a bitter customer that will not ever shop with them again. That's kind of how I view things. They lost future purchases from a tech enthusiast.
Have a nice day everyone.
Yes, i was for a while getting 90 - 120MB (megabytes/sec)
I was messing around with settings like anon ftp (on/off) ftp server on/off and rebooting it, etc. By chance it was transfering files at 1000Mb speeds. What i would expect it to do.
I know for a fact these will do Gigabit speeds but for some reason either the OS config on them or the firmware, something is limiting them. I've had these for years and I only got it to do it that one time.
I'm not sure if it has the cpu power to run a raid5 very fast because of the calulations maybe, but I believe I may of been in raid0 mode when this happened. (Raid0 doesn't need calulations) thus the trasfer rate could in theory be quicker.
I'm messing around with my 2 TB terastation now, and i'm gonna put it back into raid0 and play with it.
I've been googling for solutions as to why my Buffalo Linkstation Pro (LS-XH1.0TL) was so slow. After reading all the posts on this particular forum, I was compelled to sign up for a login name just to post this message. I agree with most of the commenters that Buffalo should not be advertising Gigabit disk transfer rates when then maximum transfer rates that I've been able to achieve (read and write) is 11MB (megabytes) per second.
Now, before anyone comments on how 11MB per second is actually pretty good, let me tell you that I am running over Gigabit ethernet over cat5e cable in a 700 square foot apartment. Theoretical Gigabit speeds are 128MB per second; 11MB is a dismal 8% of gigabit speed. I have been able to get transfer rates of 90MB per second between two crappy computers with low-end ethernet cards without any problems. I have played around with the framesize settings on the Linkstation to no success. I don't care to hear about the distinctions between a NAS and a file server from the moderator who works for Buffalo. I have a very simple gigabit network at home that works at gigabit speeds for all the other machines on my network except for this Linkstation. The Linkstation is being accessed by only one computer at a time so it's not like the Linkstation needs to be a fileserver to attain gigabit speeds. I am 99% certain at this point that the problem is with an inherent limitation of the Linkstation Pro, and not with my network. (Buffalo, please prove me wrong by showing me that this particular Linkstation model can transfer data at significantly more than 11MB per second.)
I am very disappointed with the performance on my Buffalo drive. The marketing of its performance is downright deceitful and I am planning to return my Buffalo for another drive can deliver true gigabit ethernet speeds. I'm open to any suggestions if there are any other NAS solutions that can deliver significantly more than 8% of gigabit speeds.
engine wrote:I am 99% certain at this point that the problem is with an inherent limitation of the Linkstation Pro, and not with my network. (Buffalo, please prove me wrong by showing me that this particular Linkstation model can transfer data at significantly more than 11MB per second.)
I got 60 - 67MB/s transfer from my LS-XHL to a gigabit PC and can provide screen shots if you don't believe me :P
Yes please include screenshots. And including your setup profile for the linkstation would be helpful. I'm assuming you're not connecting the linkstation directly to your pc?
anyone know if this issue has been corrected yet?
Spin it anyway you want. I completely agree that the target purpose of these is different at the core; NAS one is storage and fundamentally monotone-service, network file services are big-iron-concurrent-access storage. But there is the rub. We're not talking about a a hundrd, a half-dozen, or even two PC's hammering this "non-file server' device. We're talking about ONE workstation connceted to ONE Linkstation through a gigabit switch and a pair of cat6 wires.
Provided the back-channel of the data source can feed it (and I'm assuming the IO controller is at least as good as the pos junk Promise has put out for decades now, there is no earthly excuse WHATSOEVER short of M.I.C.I.S.B. (Made in China in Someone's Basement) for there to be 7MB/sec throughput on hardware designed to deliver 70mb-120mb sustained.
I've written both NAS and dedicated file server software for years. From 64 processor OLAP implementations to servers designed to handle millions of requests per minute. I've done them all and then some. Bottom line for this device: Either the IO channel here is a pos or their pd-network hardware and driver combo is just that bad. There is no excuse besides profit/unit.
Fwi, I don't even open a Duo. I own a 4TB Quad LinkStation, and time has taught nothing; the performance is just as horrible. The absolute best performance I can get running on all-Intel 1000mb lines is 12mB/sec. In comparison, dumping files from my workstation to my wife's Windows 7 Media Server (note: NOT a dedicated file server either) plugged into the same switch one port over (and yes, I've tested both ports) i experience over 125mb/sec sustained. Their MediaStation software makes their storage throughput look stellar (yeah, its even worse than that).
So call a spade a spade. But give up trying with the whole "that's not what its meant for" argument, because in the end all you're effectively doing is telling someone they're an idiot for expecting to get anything close to the performance that is actually advertised and paid for.
This product is just that bad. Period. It is unquestionable the worst $500 i've spent on hardware in the last decade, and thats coming from easily a $40,000 pool of personal purchases and setups. Yes, its even worse than Logitech, and frankly that boggles the mind.
And you can quote me on that.
This NAS is not slower than other cheap NAS. I work two years now with this NAS and I'm really glad, that I bought this Link Station Pro Duo. It is worth every cent I paid for it.
I even coul upgrade it to 4 Terabyte without great effort.
I have transfer rates with the new harddisks up to 14 Megabyte/s and this is more than enough for it's pupose.
The best thing is: Even if all PCs are off the LinkStation can backup my important data automatically to an external USB-Disk.
And I can use my data through the web interface all over the world. That's fantastic.
And now I read these statements from people, who don't know what an emarald they bought.
I can even print with my old USB-Laserprinter through the network without an own LAN-Function of this printer (Brother HL-5130).
So people: Don't cry too loud....it's shameful.
Hi,
I have some sympathy for this issue; i bought a LinkStation Live. I didn't expect it to transfer at even half the stated 1000mbps, and i appreciate there is little relation between the 1000mbps statement and actual speed.
Yet where I think Buffalo gets it wrong is by not stating what rate should be expected. Especially for the standard Live model, as all the other models like the pro state "High speed Data Transfer of up to 76MB/s" Which frankly is very high indeed and certainly sets the impression that the device is going to be much faster than it is in reality.
Personally i have gotten lucky and can transfer a 700MB file at around 17MB/s over my 1000mbps LAN... although I suppose my issue with Buffalo is when a company markets a product they have to manage their customers' expectations. Unless you have had a prior experience with NAS drives in the past your expectations are high due to the 1000mbps rating and the "High speed Data Transfer of up to 76MB/s". When some users get around 4MB/s - 14MB/s its clearly missing the mark and leading to a shortfall in expectation on the device and a feeling of... well getting a substandard product. Ultimately it's the Buffalo brand which loses credibility as devices get returned and people complain in forums and on intermediary websites like Amazon.
Finally having read through the previous threads, I wonder if Buffalo have missed the point of this ill feeling towards their products (on the speed issue at least); it's not about whether the public understands the difference between a NAS and file server it's down to misleading marketing material that raises expectations to a high level. I quote "High speed Data Transfer of up to 76MB/s"
To give it a slightly more conceptual analogy; It feels like the product was marketed as a Ferrari, potentially capable of doing 150mph, yet when you buy the car take it home and find it can only do 15mph and you speak to the sales person who says, "well that's down to the 1.4lt (small engine) and it really does depend on the conditions of the road, and you do know the difference between x & y" you will feel short changed as you hadn't expected to drive at 150mph, but you sure as heck expected it to perform a little better than 10% of its anticipated speed!
Oh and i doubt this issue will get fixed as i suspect its' a shortfall in hardware performance. So little point nagging on that front. I also hate the fact i used the phrase "gotten lucky"... suppose it seems up where my expectations where at prior purchase and where they are now post...
I picked up a few sale items this black friday weekend. A wireless N router (The one with the usb port to hook up external storage) with gigabit ports and a western digital 2.0 terrabyte usb hard drive. I thought I would clean up my buffalo a little bit this weekend and move things around since I just upgraded to gigabit. I noticed a very small difference in performance from the NAS on the new router, which was the main reason why I skipped ober the 10/100. I did however see a faster speed from the newer hard drive that I attaqched to the router. This thread was started last year so maybe technology has advanced and things got a little faster since then. Anyway, the reason that I am in this forum is because I was looking for this slow speed fix. I guess I am not going to have any luck.
Why is this company still in business? I've just wasted 2 weeks of my life trying to get this product to work and when I search google for help all I see is hundreds of complaints from similarly deceived buyers about how slow these producst are. Everything about the Linkstation is slow - the web interface is glacial at even loading basic data about the drive config and transfer speeds are just appalling to the extent that the product is unusable. I get really angry when I see comments from moderators suggesting that users need to tinker with esoteric network settings to make a pretty basic product function at even 10% of published transfer rates when it really should work straight out of the box. The manual is hopeless and the details so generalised that they barely apply to the individual model you may have. The direct USB-NAS stuff is obscure and lacks any kind of user interface to tell you if it's even transfering data or not, and the best I've acheieved by any means - including hard wired cat5 local network is a pathetic 200kbs which is as close to the square root of useless as it's possible to get. The whole 4gb device has been consigned to the trash can and I've just bought the same capacity in USB for under $100 which worked straight out of the box and gave me 30mb/sec transfers immediatly and which is shareable throughout my network - locally and remotely. I wish Google could capture this rant and make it instantly available to anyone even thinking about buying anything from Buffalo - in short, if you read this and haven't already been hooked in by the hype, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!
Theres no reason that you should be getting speeds that slow (200 kbs), there is most likely something else going on. Let me know if you're interested in trying to fix the problem instead of being upset about it.
I have seen the light...
The 127Mbps I was complaining about earlier is not a bottleneck of the NAS, I have a 2 or 3 year old LinkStation duo and one day I got frisky and bought a couple of upper-mid 7200 rpm drives with 64MB cache, chucked em into RAID 0 and BAM, now I get 215Mbps...
Keep in mind this is when READING a file from the LinkStation in RAID 1 and WRITING to a RAID 0 array via FTP.
Another thing to keep in mind.... this is as fast as it is going to get... Reading from mechanical HDDs can only be so fast :)
Hi All,
As a former retailer-going-distributor in Germany and the Netherlands, I have been employed to see which products are being true to what they are offering consumers at-first-glance. We buy a couple of products and test them. If "issues" occur, we feel around the support side of the manufacturer.
These Buffalo products appear not to deliver as promised. According to EU law it is unreasonable to expect lay-people to "do their homework" on each product they encounter. But getting into word-games and legal stuff... Nah, I'm not here to do that. That is more something for Neelie Smit-Kroes from the EU council (http://www.parlement.com/9291000/biof/01716) whom I will be notifying of Buffalo's practices *in particular*.
As for us, we will not be taking on your products in our assortment, especially due to the support being delivered and the "no refunds" policy. This policy ONLY is in place because the division that has created these products are very well aware of the limited capabilities of these products. If Buffalo had *the tiniest bit of trust* in their own products, they would naturally offer a refund.
For all people on here who have a complaint about the way the products are being marketed and the performance provided and think that it is misleading them, I would suggest contacting Ms. Smit-Kroes via her email: Neelie.Kroes@ec.europa.eu so the designated deparments can start mining the web in regards to this sort of practices on the consumer side of the IT-market.
The cause appears to be well known, even at the moderator level. The CPU is far too slow for a device which is supposed to be able to stream movie files over a LAN or the Firmware is not up to par. They know this. They are just reluctant to thell this to people. The CPU does not have to be a limiting factor in this sort of device: far superiour cpu's are cheaply and readily available all over the planet. which will deliver faster throughput for the same cost.
Either way, the products do not deliver the functionality they claim to possess: no-one will watch a movie stuttering or wait a whole night for a backup of a couple of files to be complete. If something is offered as a storage device and will only offer the illusion of performance when working on a small Word or PDF file on the network, than this is the device for you. For everyone else, I would suggest to take a look at some other products which might be slightly higher priced but which DO perform as one might expect.
Good day to you all.
I know this is an old post but wanted to share my experience with this NAS.
I was getting slow transfer speeds of maximum 12MB/s with my original setup:
Pro Duo plug into my Router with 10/100 ethernet sockets
PC (gigbit card) plugged into Router
Cat 6 cable throughout.
Copying 12GB file from NAS to PC
My next setup which gave the same speed rates was:
Pro Duo plugged into a different router with 100/1000 (gigabit) ethernet sockets
PC (gigbit card) plugged into Router
Cat 6 cable throughout.
Copying 12GB file from NAS to PC
My next setup which works was:
Pro Duo plugged into gigabit switch
PC plugged into gigabit switch
Gigabit switch plugged into 100/1000 Router
Cat 6 cable throughout.
Copying 12GB file from NAS to PC
This setup gave me an average transfer rate 80MB/s. It topped out at 98MB/s and was no slower than 70MB/s Result!
So my assessment is that if you plug anything into the router the hardware of the router will throttle your transfer rates from the NAS - buy a gigabit switch and watch it fly!
Buffalo could be a bit more helpful on their packaging to say what setup they had to get their transfer rates - but then I suspect they are worried that they would be held accountable if users use different hardware to them and don't get the same results - maybe!
The switch I used is:
Netgear Prosafe 8-port Gigabit Desktop switch - GS108UK v3 - you can pick it up at PC World on special offer for £39.99 as of today.
I really hope this helps.
I have a 2 year old Linkstation. Finally had the time to figure out that my slow speed issue, of late anyway, was simply a mismatch between the MTU setting of the drive, and that of my MacBook ethernet card (card now set to 9000 and drive set to 7900 or so). I get rates of better than 40MB/s now (as measured by LittleSnitch network monitor).
This is for ethernet cable connected directly from MacBook to the drive because I've had issues with lost connection between my MacBook and the drive when I plug it into my router and then access wirelessly over my home wi-fi. I have not tried setting the two MTUs similar for wireless. Could be tricky unless the NIC changes the packet size automatically when interfacing with my ISP. The ISP may limit everything to 1500 MTU.