Does Linkstation Pro Duo really work with Gigabit network? Always 100 Mbps, even 1000 Mbps

[jpegmore]

   

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... 

[vanadiel]

   

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.

- 

[PCPiranha]

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_data_storage" rel="nofollow" target=_blank>computer data storage connected to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network" rel="nofollow" target=_blank>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.

[Memoryman]

   

Thank you PC Piranha for clarifying this in the USA forums.

[vanadiel]

   

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.

[bs23n1b]

   

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_data_storage" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" title="Computer data storage">computer data storage connected to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" title="Computer network">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.

[PCPiranha]

"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.

[Memoryman]

   

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.

 

[bs23n1b]

   

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.

[PCPiranha]

The speed limitation is due to the processor.

[bs23n1b]

   

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.

 

[PCPiranha]

"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.

[bs23n1b]

   

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"

[Yeppers]

   

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.

[Yeppers]

   

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.