USB transfer rate

[pbo42]

Hi,

I know about the theoretical value of the USB1.1 transfer rate and want to ask for real life rates of the WL500g, esp. to USB-hardrives?

And what is the overall performance of a WL500g "file server":

With samba?

With ftp (I found one post stating 400-500kB)?

I think it could be of global interest. Thanks in advance.
Peter

[JOCKYW2001]

I have the same question. Oleg wrote that performance is VERY poor with usb drives. I'd personally be satisfied if it can do about 8-9mbs NFS R/W.
Did anyone actually try?

[WlanMan]

Hi

My FTP speed to a Flashdrive is around 600 to 700kb, so this is quite good.
The Samba speed was a bit poorer if it worked at all, but this can be a fault of my crapy SMB configuration at the PC.
I can to a little benchmark when im back home.

Greets

[Styno]

If you do a search on the forum you will find the answers. Benchmarks with different firmwares have been posted before.

Samba and FTP speeds (R/W) don't differ much and are around 600 - 700 KByte/s. Do not expect this to change much in any firmware to come.

If these speeds aren't good enough wait for the WL-500gx to arrive or go buy a WL-HDD (There's a new WL-HDD on the horizon, it too should perform better).

/Edit: Removed some nonsense...

[WlanMan]

...around 600 - 700 KByte/s. Do not expect this to change much in any firmware to come. Oleg proved this speed is CPU limited.

CPU Limited ???
I dont see any heavy load on my device, and its near enough to the USB maximum to be an overhead of the SCSI-Emulation.

Greets

[Oleg]

600-700KB/s is the good thing for the USB 1.1. Yes, CPU limits maximum ethernet thruput to something like 3.5MB/s.

[Styno]

Oops, yes, CPU is not limiting the transfer on WL-500g, USB does. Slight difference, same result

[JOCKYW2001]

600-700KB/s is the good thing for the USB 1.1.

Maybe NFS is faster. I'll try it out when I get my hands on an external HDD

[Styno]

Maybe NFS is faster. I'll try it out when I get my hands on an external HDD

That will make no/little difference. Using the FTP server the transferrate is also around 600-700 Kbyte/s.

Perhaps it will fix some other issues with Samba...

[Antiloop]

If you do a search on the forum you will find the answers. Benchmarks with different firmwares have been posted before.

Samba and FTP speeds (R/W) don't differ much and are around 600 - 700 KByte/s. Do not expect this to change much in any firmware to come.

If these speeds aren't good enough wait for the WL-500gx to arrive or go buy a WL-HDD (There's a new WL-HDD on the horizon, it too should perform better).

/Edit: Removed some nonsense...

a new WL-HDD ? the WL-HDD3.5 I told you about?
or did I miss something

[Styno]

a new WL-HDD ? the WL-HDD3.5 I told you about?
or did I miss something

Uhuh / Yes / no

[Oleg]

Please decode you answer.

[JOCKYW2001]

Improving network performance is haunting me
Just found this article:
http://wwwx.cs.unc.edu/~sparkst/howt...ork_tuning.php

The full busybox does have sysctl so it's possible to tweak values such as rmem_default or rmem_max

Did anyone try this already?

[Oleg]

Well, you do not need sysctl for this. Just an echo to /proc/sys/kernel/ etc...
I've played with this - no significiant differences.
On the other hand I was able to improve performance by something like 10% by reducing number of interrupts on transmission. But this is too low anyway.

[Styno]

Please decode you answer.

Okay, I'll start decoding now:

a new WL-HDD ?

Uhuh

the WL-HDD3.5 I told you about?

Yes

or did I miss something

no

Done!