- Welcome to Buffalo Forums.
News:
Buffalo provides Data Recovery services. Read about it here.
Recent posts
#1
Storage / DLNA problem on LS720
Last post by majbuzz - April 02, 2026, 10:39:22 AMI'm using the latest firmware for my Buffalo LS720D NAS 2.02.13
I don't know when this problem began. It had no issues before, but now the DLNA setting will not hold. I can click on it and it seems to be set but then it goes back to being off. I suppose that the most recent firmware is the problem. I seldom use the NAS for media streaming.
Any suggestions? If there's an earlier firmware version available, can I roll it back. Thanks in advance.
MJ
I don't know when this problem began. It had no issues before, but now the DLNA setting will not hold. I can click on it and it seems to be set but then it goes back to being off. I suppose that the most recent firmware is the problem. I seldom use the NAS for media streaming.
Any suggestions? If there's an earlier firmware version available, can I roll it back. Thanks in advance.
MJ
#2
Storage / Re: slow copying to TS5810/580...
Last post by Kane88 - March 29, 2026, 07:33:15 PMSo on to Checking the TS5810 manual, chapter 3:
https://www.buffalo.jp/s3/guide/ts5010/global/99/en/index.html?Chapter3#h2anc0
There is no information about the SMB section at all. And no mention of any configuration items for the protocols either. I went through the rest of the manual, and found nothing.
That information should be right here in Chapter 3.
Buffalo dropped the ball here too. Why?
So I checked TS 5810 console: File Sharing > SMB
SMB Encryption is set at Default. But we have no idea what 'default' is, nothing in the manual- says what default is.
Perhaps later, I might try with this setting disabled, and re enabling SMB Encryption on the Windows PC.
But, even if I do that, it will not solve my problem for the 5800 series.
Going to the TS 5800/5400 console: File Sharing > SMB
There are no Settings for SMB Encryption at all. We have no idea if there is any SMB Encryption or not. I assume there is, given turning SMB Encryption off on the PC, did make file transfers to the 5800 and 5400 units I have.
So yeah, Buffalo has indeed dropped the ball here somewhat. I don't think passing the buck to Microsoft solves this one folks, I really don't.
https://www.buffalo.jp/s3/guide/ts5010/global/99/en/index.html?Chapter3#h2anc0
There is no information about the SMB section at all. And no mention of any configuration items for the protocols either. I went through the rest of the manual, and found nothing.
That information should be right here in Chapter 3.
Buffalo dropped the ball here too. Why?
So I checked TS 5810 console: File Sharing > SMB
SMB Encryption is set at Default. But we have no idea what 'default' is, nothing in the manual- says what default is.
Perhaps later, I might try with this setting disabled, and re enabling SMB Encryption on the Windows PC.
But, even if I do that, it will not solve my problem for the 5800 series.
Going to the TS 5800/5400 console: File Sharing > SMB
There are no Settings for SMB Encryption at all. We have no idea if there is any SMB Encryption or not. I assume there is, given turning SMB Encryption off on the PC, did make file transfers to the 5800 and 5400 units I have.
So yeah, Buffalo has indeed dropped the ball here somewhat. I don't think passing the buck to Microsoft solves this one folks, I really don't.
#3
Storage / Re: slow copying to TS5810/580...
Last post by Kane88 - March 28, 2026, 03:58:40 AMSo these settings from the article, really do work.
Fix Slow Network Copy Speeds in Windows 10/11 by Tuning SMB and Disabling Throttling
I also added the robocopy /J switch and wow. Even copying between terastations (TS 5400+ TS5810) from the 6300 also is up to where it should be, a 95MB/sec average. I know with this machine that it was definitely at 50MB/sec in the past, without the robocopy /J switch to copy BETWEEN terastations.
I did NOT enable jumbo frames, as the article points out: Jumbo frames: Only enable jumbo frames if every device on the path supports it correctly (PC NIC + switch + NAS). Misconfigured jumbo frames often reduce performance.
I've seen good results with three machines, the HP 800 G6 10th gen, an HP 800 G3, and also an HP 800 G1. All three have Intel RAID chipsets and all are copying at at least 200MB/sec now- about 4x higher than what they were beforehand.
So to find out the cause: I went in reverse order:
I started with putting the registry values back to what they were, and then rebooted. Sure enough, these registry changes had no effect, the copy went ok at the right speed.
Then, I used powershell to turn SMB encryption back on, and rebooted again.
And sure enough, there it went back to the way it was. Slow Copying at 50MB/sec from the Intel HP 800 G3 RAID PC to the TS5810.
So it has been narrowed down to this SMB Require Encryption setting.
And that folks is definitely- THE culprit.
----------
Now that said, this part here from the article does seem to be something on the buffalo side of things:
SMB encryption: If SMB encryption is enabled on the share, it can heavily tax CPUs. Use it only where needed.
(Kane88: Obviously the share IS the source, which IS the Terastation itself)
Now the questions for the Buffalo Team (if they still read these forums are) are:
Will they give us options in the future, to change SMB Encryption settings in the Terastation Console?
Why do I need to turn SMB encryption OFF (to get any decent copying speed), simply because I have Intel SATA RAID chipsets in some of my computers?
Why does the terastation copy ok at the proper speed, with a PC that does not have an Intel SATA RAID chipset?
And please, let's not point fingers completely at Microsoft about this one.
----------
Given that when the SMB encryption setting is on, I can copy between two windows PCs just fine:
I still feel that even partially, this problem resides with the Buffalo firmware / within the Linux OS config they are using.
I am not knowledgeable enough to test this out with Linux. But given people have had problems with SLOW SMB using things like Open Media Vault, etc that are Linux based: I assume this SMB encryption problem is universal (to whatever extent in the Linux OS itself), no matter the operating system.
IF SMB encryption indeed is ON in the Terastation 'firmware' (Which I presume it is, yet I have no way to check and verify this, that would require the help of 10... or another Linux or Debian Wizard, who knows how to check that) I could understand why. Buffalo would want to protect the data of their business customers, first and foremost, which makes senese.
But as we see here this is done at the cost of decent SMB speed, for some machines.
So you be the judge. I have some older terastations I might try this out with at some point. And who knows, maybe this effects the speed of the Linkstations out there too, no idea.
Please note I do not work for buffalo, and you try these settings- at your own risk. Before you do anything, back up the registry setting beforehand, just as that article says to do!!! And your mileage may vary, this worked for me, but your configuration and situation, might be different.
-----
Summary
What change was kept in Win11 25H2:
Set-SmbClientConfiguration -RequireSecuritySignature $false
What was tested (it was later removed and reverted back to its default settings)
Back up the registry key
Press Win + R, type regedit, press Enter.
Navigate to:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Multimedia\SystemProfile
Right-click SystemProfile → Export (save a .reg file).
Set NetworkThrottlingIndex to "disabled"
In the same key, find NetworkThrottlingIndex.
If it doesn't exist: Right-click → New → DWORD (32-bit) Value
Set its value to:
Hex: ffffffff
Decimal: 4294967295
Click OK.
(Optional) Increase system responsiveness
In the same location, you may see SystemResponsiveness.
Some users set it to 0 (decimal) for maximum responsiveness to network tasks.
If present, set to 10 or 0 based on your use (gaming/streaming vs file server).
When in doubt, leave it alone.
Reboot
This change typically requires a reboot to fully apply.
Fix Slow Network Copy Speeds in Windows 10/11 by Tuning SMB and Disabling Throttling
I also added the robocopy /J switch and wow. Even copying between terastations (TS 5400+ TS5810) from the 6300 also is up to where it should be, a 95MB/sec average. I know with this machine that it was definitely at 50MB/sec in the past, without the robocopy /J switch to copy BETWEEN terastations.
I did NOT enable jumbo frames, as the article points out: Jumbo frames: Only enable jumbo frames if every device on the path supports it correctly (PC NIC + switch + NAS). Misconfigured jumbo frames often reduce performance.
I've seen good results with three machines, the HP 800 G6 10th gen, an HP 800 G3, and also an HP 800 G1. All three have Intel RAID chipsets and all are copying at at least 200MB/sec now- about 4x higher than what they were beforehand.
So to find out the cause: I went in reverse order:
I started with putting the registry values back to what they were, and then rebooted. Sure enough, these registry changes had no effect, the copy went ok at the right speed.
Then, I used powershell to turn SMB encryption back on, and rebooted again.
And sure enough, there it went back to the way it was. Slow Copying at 50MB/sec from the Intel HP 800 G3 RAID PC to the TS5810.
So it has been narrowed down to this SMB Require Encryption setting.
And that folks is definitely- THE culprit.
----------
Now that said, this part here from the article does seem to be something on the buffalo side of things:
SMB encryption: If SMB encryption is enabled on the share, it can heavily tax CPUs. Use it only where needed.
(Kane88: Obviously the share IS the source, which IS the Terastation itself)
Now the questions for the Buffalo Team (if they still read these forums are) are:
Will they give us options in the future, to change SMB Encryption settings in the Terastation Console?
Why do I need to turn SMB encryption OFF (to get any decent copying speed), simply because I have Intel SATA RAID chipsets in some of my computers?
Why does the terastation copy ok at the proper speed, with a PC that does not have an Intel SATA RAID chipset?
And please, let's not point fingers completely at Microsoft about this one.
----------
Given that when the SMB encryption setting is on, I can copy between two windows PCs just fine:
I still feel that even partially, this problem resides with the Buffalo firmware / within the Linux OS config they are using.
I am not knowledgeable enough to test this out with Linux. But given people have had problems with SLOW SMB using things like Open Media Vault, etc that are Linux based: I assume this SMB encryption problem is universal (to whatever extent in the Linux OS itself), no matter the operating system.
IF SMB encryption indeed is ON in the Terastation 'firmware' (Which I presume it is, yet I have no way to check and verify this, that would require the help of 10... or another Linux or Debian Wizard, who knows how to check that) I could understand why. Buffalo would want to protect the data of their business customers, first and foremost, which makes senese.
But as we see here this is done at the cost of decent SMB speed, for some machines.
So you be the judge. I have some older terastations I might try this out with at some point. And who knows, maybe this effects the speed of the Linkstations out there too, no idea.
Please note I do not work for buffalo, and you try these settings- at your own risk. Before you do anything, back up the registry setting beforehand, just as that article says to do!!! And your mileage may vary, this worked for me, but your configuration and situation, might be different.
-----
Summary
What change was kept in Win11 25H2:
Set-SmbClientConfiguration -RequireSecuritySignature $false
What was tested (it was later removed and reverted back to its default settings)
Back up the registry key
Press Win + R, type regedit, press Enter.
Navigate to:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Multimedia\SystemProfile
Right-click SystemProfile → Export (save a .reg file).
Set NetworkThrottlingIndex to "disabled"
In the same key, find NetworkThrottlingIndex.
If it doesn't exist: Right-click → New → DWORD (32-bit) Value
Set its value to:
Hex: ffffffff
Decimal: 4294967295
Click OK.
(Optional) Increase system responsiveness
In the same location, you may see SystemResponsiveness.
Some users set it to 0 (decimal) for maximum responsiveness to network tasks.
If present, set to 10 or 0 based on your use (gaming/streaming vs file server).
When in doubt, leave it alone.
Reboot
This change typically requires a reboot to fully apply.
#4
Storage / Re: slow copying to TS5810/580...
Last post by Kane88 - March 24, 2026, 06:58:02 AMSo now I found this. And tried the settings in here. I'm not really big on disabling signing on the Win 11 25H2 PC, but I need to do some testing. My first quick test copying a 5gb image file FROM the TS 5810 to an Intel RAID 0 array is now at about 216MB/sec
Still, its kind of wierd I need to be editing the registry to make this work.
https://windowsforum.com/threads/fix-slow-network-copy-speeds-in-windows-10-11-by-tuning-smb-and-disabling-throttling.399062/
When I get a chance to test more, I'll post again.
Still, its kind of wierd I need to be editing the registry to make this work.
https://windowsforum.com/threads/fix-slow-network-copy-speeds-in-windows-10-11-by-tuning-smb-and-disabling-throttling.399062/
When I get a chance to test more, I'll post again.
#5
Storage / Re: slow copying to TS5810/580...
Last post by Kane88 - March 24, 2026, 03:46:42 AMWell, I decided to send in a Windows Feedback request explaining this problem. I don't expect Microsoft to reply or to do anything about it, but we'll see.
And I tested also an older HP 6300 machine (that doesn't have an Intel desktop raid chipset in it) with the same Realtek 2.5gbe card in it and Win11 25H2. And sure enough, it copied to the TS 5810 at 250MB/sec!!!
It's crazy that a third gen intel machine (that doesn't have raid) can run circles around an intel 10th generation machine (that has raid), when copying to the Buffalo 5810 NAS.
Honestly, I am surprised this was NOT uncovered during testing of their firmware. Maybe it's not an issue to a ton of people, but still- this should have been found and rectified.
As for the Buffalo/Linux side, I found this:
https://forums.unraid.net/topic/184182-painfully-slow-smb-transfer-recent-issue/
And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenMediaVault/comments/11gwi1g/significant_samba_speedperformance_improvement_by/
And apparently there IS some sort of issue(s) with Linux Samba shares being slow- in general with RAID arrays.
Do we have any knowledgeable Linux people out here who could assist? My thought is to try a Live ISO like SysRescueCD to prove some things out, but
1. I don't know how to map samba shares with Linux and
2. I don't know how to make any config changes mentioned in either of these articles linked above.
I also thought of using the Buffalo NAS wiki and maybe trying to load a different os (on a different set of disks), just to prove out the problem resides in the Buffalo Firmware.
As for Buffalo support, they have 'passed the buck' on to Microsoft for this problem. Yet I think the issue (even partially) does lie at Buffalo's doorstep given there are issues with slow samba speeds, even for full out Linux users.
The display on the TS 5810 does show it's connected at 2.5gbe. My link lights show everything is 2.5gbe. Maybe this slow speed thing isn't an issue to some. But I just find it peculiar to see a 10gbe connection crippled to a whopping 50MB/sec. Just because the client PC simply has an intel raid controller (even when that raid controller is operating in single drive AHCI mode)- it makes- no sense.
And I tested also an older HP 6300 machine (that doesn't have an Intel desktop raid chipset in it) with the same Realtek 2.5gbe card in it and Win11 25H2. And sure enough, it copied to the TS 5810 at 250MB/sec!!!
It's crazy that a third gen intel machine (that doesn't have raid) can run circles around an intel 10th generation machine (that has raid), when copying to the Buffalo 5810 NAS.
Honestly, I am surprised this was NOT uncovered during testing of their firmware. Maybe it's not an issue to a ton of people, but still- this should have been found and rectified.
As for the Buffalo/Linux side, I found this:
https://forums.unraid.net/topic/184182-painfully-slow-smb-transfer-recent-issue/
And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenMediaVault/comments/11gwi1g/significant_samba_speedperformance_improvement_by/
And apparently there IS some sort of issue(s) with Linux Samba shares being slow- in general with RAID arrays.
Do we have any knowledgeable Linux people out here who could assist? My thought is to try a Live ISO like SysRescueCD to prove some things out, but
1. I don't know how to map samba shares with Linux and
2. I don't know how to make any config changes mentioned in either of these articles linked above.
I also thought of using the Buffalo NAS wiki and maybe trying to load a different os (on a different set of disks), just to prove out the problem resides in the Buffalo Firmware.
As for Buffalo support, they have 'passed the buck' on to Microsoft for this problem. Yet I think the issue (even partially) does lie at Buffalo's doorstep given there are issues with slow samba speeds, even for full out Linux users.
The display on the TS 5810 does show it's connected at 2.5gbe. My link lights show everything is 2.5gbe. Maybe this slow speed thing isn't an issue to some. But I just find it peculiar to see a 10gbe connection crippled to a whopping 50MB/sec. Just because the client PC simply has an intel raid controller (even when that raid controller is operating in single drive AHCI mode)- it makes- no sense.
#6
Storage / Re: 5800d max hard drive size?...
Last post by Kane88 - March 22, 2026, 03:14:14 PMNot sure if you found your answer, but I'll reply anyway for others that may have the same question.
I believe the 5000 series could handle pretty much any drive on the market today. I'm not sure of the max size, but I can say I have 18tb drives running in a TS5400, and 14tb drives running in a TS5800 for a good year now, and no problems. I plan on moving to 18s in a 5810DN, once I sort out my networking problems with it.
It's the 3000 series and older that are limited to 16tb RAID Arrays or 16tb disks max in JBOD mode. You can't use 18tb or larger drives in those for sure.
I believe the 5000 series could handle pretty much any drive on the market today. I'm not sure of the max size, but I can say I have 18tb drives running in a TS5400, and 14tb drives running in a TS5800 for a good year now, and no problems. I plan on moving to 18s in a 5810DN, once I sort out my networking problems with it.
It's the 3000 series and older that are limited to 16tb RAID Arrays or 16tb disks max in JBOD mode. You can't use 18tb or larger drives in those for sure.
#7
Storage / Re: I wouild like to register ...
Last post by Kane88 - March 22, 2026, 03:05:02 PMThanks for the heads up on this. I didn't look at my drives when I got my 5810.
Conversely, I am glad they made this change. I will be able to put larger drives in my 5810 later, because the screws will actually line up correctly on the side.
With the older drive trays you're using now, the problem is some of them have SIX mounting holes on the bottom and some of them only have FOUR. And the ones with only FOUR, the holes do not line up for larger helium filled drives. You can only screw in 2 of the 4 screws needed. Though it works, I'd be worried about vibration with 8 drives mounted only with two screws each.
My suggestion would be to look on ebay and see if you can find the right kind of screw. I bet they are out there- some where.
I have the reverse of this problem you're facing- but with M.2 screws. It's amazing how many PCs won't come with M.2 slot screws, unless a drive is in the slot. I picked up a 500 pack from ebay for under 2c per screw, and the heads on them are a little too small to where the M.2 drive needs to be like 1mm or less closer to the screw post, and so it is not 100% in the slot, more like 99.90% but it works.
Maybe take a size measurement of the gap in the side of the tray, and see what other screws are out there.
Maybe in quantity Buffalo could come down in price. The problem is that shipping is through the roof with any carrier right now. And small stuff shipped like this is with UPS is a deal breaker for those on a budget- for sure.
USPS should be cheaper for small stuff like this. Maybe you can talk them into using USPS ground advantage or something cheaper.
Conversely, I am glad they made this change. I will be able to put larger drives in my 5810 later, because the screws will actually line up correctly on the side.
With the older drive trays you're using now, the problem is some of them have SIX mounting holes on the bottom and some of them only have FOUR. And the ones with only FOUR, the holes do not line up for larger helium filled drives. You can only screw in 2 of the 4 screws needed. Though it works, I'd be worried about vibration with 8 drives mounted only with two screws each.
My suggestion would be to look on ebay and see if you can find the right kind of screw. I bet they are out there- some where.
I have the reverse of this problem you're facing- but with M.2 screws. It's amazing how many PCs won't come with M.2 slot screws, unless a drive is in the slot. I picked up a 500 pack from ebay for under 2c per screw, and the heads on them are a little too small to where the M.2 drive needs to be like 1mm or less closer to the screw post, and so it is not 100% in the slot, more like 99.90% but it works.
Maybe take a size measurement of the gap in the side of the tray, and see what other screws are out there.
Maybe in quantity Buffalo could come down in price. The problem is that shipping is through the roof with any carrier right now. And small stuff shipped like this is with UPS is a deal breaker for those on a budget- for sure.
USPS should be cheaper for small stuff like this. Maybe you can talk them into using USPS ground advantage or something cheaper.
#8
Storage / Re: LS420D0202 - NEW DRIVES -F...
Last post by Kane88 - March 21, 2026, 02:23:04 AMIs it an LS220D or LS220DE? Look at the back of your unit and you will see one or the other for the model number
The 220DE should go into EM mode for you to update the firmware by itself.
The LS220D needs TFTP files to boot the device. If you have the 220D You need to contact buffalo support and get the TFTP files.
I think you have the LS220D from what you describe.
What TFTP does, is it boots your unit into EM emergency mode, to where you can reload the firmware using the updater.
Here are my old TFTP notes, if you can get the files, you use the latest firmware and should be able to reload the firmware by holding the function button for 30 seconds.
----------
PC 1 - main workstation pc
PC 2 - second pc - media center, laptop, test box, whatever
disable windows firewall on both PCs during the update process
All PCs and NAS - on local network/switch
PC 2 - 192.168.11.1 / 255.255.255.0 - firewall disabled, run tftp app - as admin
PC 1 - DHCP, local network
NAS - powered off, plugged into switch on the same network
Verify all items are connected to LAN, nothing should be directly connected to the NAS
tftp app running on PC2
turn on NAS, red error lights blink - hold reset for 30 secs, it will boot
verify 2 sets of blocks are sent from tftp on PC2
unit grabs a dhcp address after it boots
after a few mins, use nasnavi on PC1, find nas
run firmware update, right click, check all boxes on right side
start update
(you should not have this problem with LS220D- older than that will have problems)
then, older models have problems rebooting nas during update
it freaks out, needing the tftp blocks again...
shut the nas unit off.
close out tftp on PC2, reopen it.
keep PC2 on the 192.168.11.1 address
turn unit back on, hold the reset for 30 secs again...
verify 2 sets of blocks are sent from PC2 again...
---
(resume here)
unit should start flashing orange, 2 long - 5 short - indicating firmware is updating.
It may lose connection to the firmware update app for whatever reason. You can close and reopen it if so.
The 220DE should go into EM mode for you to update the firmware by itself.
The LS220D needs TFTP files to boot the device. If you have the 220D You need to contact buffalo support and get the TFTP files.
I think you have the LS220D from what you describe.
What TFTP does, is it boots your unit into EM emergency mode, to where you can reload the firmware using the updater.
Here are my old TFTP notes, if you can get the files, you use the latest firmware and should be able to reload the firmware by holding the function button for 30 seconds.
----------
PC 1 - main workstation pc
PC 2 - second pc - media center, laptop, test box, whatever
disable windows firewall on both PCs during the update process
All PCs and NAS - on local network/switch
PC 2 - 192.168.11.1 / 255.255.255.0 - firewall disabled, run tftp app - as admin
PC 1 - DHCP, local network
NAS - powered off, plugged into switch on the same network
Verify all items are connected to LAN, nothing should be directly connected to the NAS
tftp app running on PC2
turn on NAS, red error lights blink - hold reset for 30 secs, it will boot
verify 2 sets of blocks are sent from tftp on PC2
unit grabs a dhcp address after it boots
after a few mins, use nasnavi on PC1, find nas
run firmware update, right click, check all boxes on right side
start update
(you should not have this problem with LS220D- older than that will have problems)
then, older models have problems rebooting nas during update
it freaks out, needing the tftp blocks again...
shut the nas unit off.
close out tftp on PC2, reopen it.
keep PC2 on the 192.168.11.1 address
turn unit back on, hold the reset for 30 secs again...
verify 2 sets of blocks are sent from PC2 again...
---
(resume here)
unit should start flashing orange, 2 long - 5 short - indicating firmware is updating.
It may lose connection to the firmware update app for whatever reason. You can close and reopen it if so.
#9
Storage / Re: Direct Connect TS1200 Nas...
Last post by Kane88 - March 21, 2026, 02:09:57 AMAnd another thing, you could always use a second PC that has wifi and a network port. You plug the network cable into the computer and the otherside into the wan port of your router. This second machine becomes a router. Then you can basically go back to what you were doing before, using your router and wired network. I did this once with an old laptop. It didn't do anything else, except route things to the wired network. I think most versions of windows today still will do this. I used win 8 at the time.
#10
Storage / Re: slow copying to TS5810/580...
Last post by Kane88 - March 21, 2026, 02:00:26 AMSo I got a response from Buffalo tech support, and they said to contact Microsoft. I guess I would expect that somewhat, with an out of warranty unit.
However, since the PCs with RAID 0 arrays in them copy to each other just fine at the right speed:
I don't see Microsoft doing anything about it. Nor can I afford to pay for a tech support case with them.
So far only my 600 G9 (and I think an HP 6300 maybe?) can copy ok to the TS5810 at the right speed. And this pc does NOT have an Intel RAID chipset in it.
It is interesting to note that the PCs that have the Intel RAID chipsets in them, are the ones that face this problem. Even in AHCI single drive mode on the Intel RAID chipsets, the problem still happens on those machines.
I'm thinking about installing the latest RST Rapid Storage drivers but I have not, thinking they may conflict with the Windows OS itself, and in some cases the RST drivers will be much older than what MS is using as a default these days.
I also got a couple of Intel I226-V cards that are 2.5gb, and same thing happened with them. So I don't think it is so much in the networking hardware.
I am wondering if any of you can duplicate this problem, even with a 5000 series or 3000 series unit, as the 5800 was only copying from or to it at about 30MB/sec. And I was using various ISOs like Win 11 ISO, or DVD ISOs I made of my movies. Same data sets copied just fine at the right speed between PCs.
I don't have a Linux PC, but I am wondering if this is an issue copying from NTFS to EXT4 or something else.
I don't know what else to rule out.
It's a real head scratcher. And hard to believe that the TS5810 10gbe port is reduced to copying at a mere 50 megabytes per second to it, for most of my computers.
However, since the PCs with RAID 0 arrays in them copy to each other just fine at the right speed:
I don't see Microsoft doing anything about it. Nor can I afford to pay for a tech support case with them.
So far only my 600 G9 (and I think an HP 6300 maybe?) can copy ok to the TS5810 at the right speed. And this pc does NOT have an Intel RAID chipset in it.
It is interesting to note that the PCs that have the Intel RAID chipsets in them, are the ones that face this problem. Even in AHCI single drive mode on the Intel RAID chipsets, the problem still happens on those machines.
I'm thinking about installing the latest RST Rapid Storage drivers but I have not, thinking they may conflict with the Windows OS itself, and in some cases the RST drivers will be much older than what MS is using as a default these days.
I also got a couple of Intel I226-V cards that are 2.5gb, and same thing happened with them. So I don't think it is so much in the networking hardware.
I am wondering if any of you can duplicate this problem, even with a 5000 series or 3000 series unit, as the 5800 was only copying from or to it at about 30MB/sec. And I was using various ISOs like Win 11 ISO, or DVD ISOs I made of my movies. Same data sets copied just fine at the right speed between PCs.
I don't have a Linux PC, but I am wondering if this is an issue copying from NTFS to EXT4 or something else.
I don't know what else to rule out.
It's a real head scratcher. And hard to believe that the TS5810 10gbe port is reduced to copying at a mere 50 megabytes per second to it, for most of my computers.