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

[DumbTechDude]

   

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!

 

 

[DumbTechDude]

   

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.  

 

 

[Yeppers]

   

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.

[Yeppers]

   

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.

[DumbTechDude]

   

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.

[rinthos]

   

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.

---

 

 

 

[Yeppers]

   

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

[DumbTechDude]

   

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.

[marfpilf]

   

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.

[neosin]

   

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.

[engine]

   

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.

[davo]

   

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

[engine]

   

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?

[pnguyen]

anyone know if this issue has been corrected yet?

[WhozCraig]

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.