Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Slow performance of WL-HDD - Discussion

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Russian Federation
    Posts
    8,356
    I do not recommend buying wl-hdd, it's VERY slow. Probably wl500gx with external HDD will be faster.
    Last edited by Antiloop; 09-12-2004 at 10:23.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleg
    I'm do not recommend buying wl-hdd, it's VERY slow. Probably wl500gx with external HDD will be faster.
    Wow, thats a new statement there Oleg! Looks like your IDE trials haven't come up with something better? Thats a big bummer for all WL-HDD owners.

    But it makes the WL-500gx more interesting even more.

  3. #3
    thanx oleg for your advice - i will wait for the wl500gx - i hope it is available soon....

    blue

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Russian Federation
    Posts
    8,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Styno
    Wow, thats a new statement there Oleg! Looks like your IDE trials haven't come up with something better? Thats a big bummer for all WL-HDD owners.

    But it makes the WL-500gx more interesting even more.
    This is not an ide problem - ide works fine, but CPU is too slow to put this data to the network.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    NL
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleg
    This is not an ide problem - ide works fine, but CPU is too slow to put this data to the network.
    Why would the wl-500gx be any faster then the wl-500g?

    Does anyone have reliable througput figures for wl-500g and WL-HDD?

    Searching this forum I see a lot of different figures.

    I have only tested wireless connection, and I get an average throughput of around 950 kb/s using NETBIOS over TCP/IP (about 7.5 Mbps) with 36Mbps+ wireless connection. Tested with over 5Gb of compressed data, multiple files ranging from 1kb to a few hundred Mb in size.
    Brubber

    WL-500g, WL-138g, WL-160g

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,308
    Because Oleg's experiments proved that datathroughput is currently CPU bound, and the WL-500gx has a 75MHz faster CPU, the WL-500gx will be faster even if the HDD is connected through USB2.0 and WL-HDD has IDE.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    NL
    Posts
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by Styno
    Because Oleg's experiments proved that datathroughput is currently CPU bound, and the WL-500gx has a 75MHz faster CPU, the WL-500gx will be faster even if the HDD is connected through USB2.0 and WL-HDD has IDE.
    Is this also true for the Wl-500g compared to the WL-500gx?

    Also I'm really surprised that the CPU is the bottleneck in data transfer speed. Is there any technical explanation or is this based on empirical findings?
    Brubber

    WL-500g, WL-138g, WL-160g

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,308
    Yes, its also true for WL500g because its practically the same hardware as WL-HDD.

    These findings are empirical but reasonably theoratically proven so you can pretty much take it 'as is'. Ofcourse WL-500g is suffering from USB1.1 bus too.

    See this thread:
    http://wl500g.info/showthread.php?t=1037
    Last edited by Styno; 14-11-2004 at 22:39.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Eindhoven
    Posts
    2,407
    Quote Originally Posted by brubber
    Is this also true for the Wl-500g compared to the WL-500gx?

    Also I'm really surprised that the CPU is the bottleneck in data transfer speed. Is there any technical explanation or is this based on empirical findings?
    speed tests have proven this..

    my wl-hdd has an internal speed of ~6megabyte/sec and ~50megabyte/sec cached

    after Oleg has manipulated things and now we have achieved a maximum of ~2Megabyte/sec over network

    better than 1,3mb/sec maximum, so it's a bit sad if Asus thinks this is a wireless harddisk with 54Mbps of bandwidth..

    My little Asus Collection: Too much to fit inhere, my 2 babies:WL500w 1.9.2.7-10(OLEG) VX2SE Yellow Lamborghini notebook



    WL500g Forum Asus Files OpenDir

    Asusforum.NL -- Asusforum.DE -- Asusforum.RU -- Asusforum.PL -- Asusforum.NET -- Asusforum.EU -- Asusforum.BE -- Asusforum.ES -- Asusforum.INFO

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    NL
    Posts
    206
    So is the 54Mbps only a nice feature on box or does it have some real meaning?

    I agree with JOCKYW2001 (http://wl500g.info/showthread.php?p=6584#post6584) that this is probably an ethernet issue. It shouldn't be using that much CPU power at such low speeds, certainly not for packets that are destined for the HD

    If the CPU speed is really limiting then I would expect only marginal improvements for the wl-500gx (please correct me if I'm wrong)
    Brubber

    WL-500g, WL-138g, WL-160g

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,308
    We're going waaaay off topic here But what the heck, its interesting talk...

    If the network performance scales lineair whith CPU speed it will reach about 3 Mbyte/sec with WL-500gx (hardwired). This is not so surprising as the TCP stack is quite large, so lots of code has to be processed before a packed is received/transmitted.

    Even modern servers are tested for CPU load in network benchmarks and it shows that even with these advanced processors the system is faily stressed while transferring 1 Gbps, so its not strange that a simple router cannot perform as well. For wireless it will be even worse because of the encryption which has to be done by the CPU as it has no hardware encryption feature.

    Full blown network routers have specialized CPU's with hardware handling part of the TCP stack and doing all the encryption.

    I wish Asus brings an XScale 400Mhz router to the consumer market, just to please the tweakers and power users

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Russian Federation
    Posts
    8,356
    Several facts about bcm4702. Sad facts.
    It's tooks 1.5 cycles for command to complete, so the BogoMIPSes is 125*2/3 about 83.33 (reported 82.94). So, think about 83.33 MHz RISC CPU.

    bcm4712, used in the wrt54g v.2 & wrt54gs runs at 200 MHz and has 200 BogoMIPS (one command per cycle, just how normal RISC CPU), so it's 2.5 times faster!

    I expect wl500gx will be 2.5 times faster than wl500g.

    And yes, CPU is performing much work - copying data, calculating CRC, traversing kernel code...

    I've no idea, why ASUS has used bcm4702 in the wl-hdd...

    Probably there will be wl-hdd v.2 or something.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Eindhoven
    Posts
    2,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Styno
    We're going waaaay off topic here But what the heck, its interesting talk...

    If the network performance scales lineair whith CPU speed it will reach about 3 Mbyte/sec with WL-500gx (hardwired). This is not so surprising as the TCP stack is quite large, so lots of code has to be processed before a packed is received/transmitted.
    thread splitted for obvious reasons

    about the WL500gx this is ofcourse dependent on the architecture used in the processor which will be used.. if we're lucky they will use an CPU which has some optimizations/accelerations for ethernet shit

    was a bit late, see also post from oleg above me
    Last edited by Antiloop; 15-11-2004 at 10:18.

    My little Asus Collection: Too much to fit inhere, my 2 babies:WL500w 1.9.2.7-10(OLEG) VX2SE Yellow Lamborghini notebook



    WL500g Forum Asus Files OpenDir

    Asusforum.NL -- Asusforum.DE -- Asusforum.RU -- Asusforum.PL -- Asusforum.NET -- Asusforum.EU -- Asusforum.BE -- Asusforum.ES -- Asusforum.INFO

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleg
    And yes, CPU is performing much work - copying data, calculating CRC, traversing kernel code...
    Looking at the et driver code it seems to me that it can be optimised a lot

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleg
    bcm4712, used in the wrt54g v.2 & wrt54gs runs at 200 MHz and has 200 BogoMIPS (one command per cycle, just how normal RISC CPU), so it's 2.5 times faster!

    I expect wl500gx will be 2.5 times faster than wl500g.
    I didn't expect broadcom would be using a different model of their MIPS CPU, I guessed they just boosted the speed a bit. Luckily they used a better design for their bcm4712 CPU. Good news indeed, the 2.5 factor can do much good!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Wondershaper QoS discussion
    By Styno in forum WL-500g Custom Development
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 26-08-2009, 15:29
  2. Again, performance.....
    By ikke_ook in forum WL-500g Q&A
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-06-2005, 06:40
  3. Performance and new firmwares for WL-500g Deluxe
    By iliketechnology in forum WL-500g Q&A
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 23-02-2005, 23:29
  4. How to test http/ftp performance
    By ghaspias in forum WL-500g Q&A
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13-12-2004, 05:05

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •