Help With Netwrok Speed

I have just bought a Buffalo TerraStation with 4x250GB hard drives. I
have set it up as 2x250 GB Raid 1 arrays for back-up.

The Buffalo is connected to the PC on a 1GB network link and the
indicator is blue, showing it is connected at that speed.

I copied 47.5 GB of data on to one array last night and it took 8 hours
14 minutes. If my maths is correct that's 5.77 GB/hr or 46.15 Gb/hr or
0.01 Gb/second.

I may well have got the maths completely wrong (and would appreciate a
correction) but that seems slow to me.

Any thoughts on the sort of speed I can realistically expect?

--
Jeff Gaines
Damerham Hampshire UK
Using XanaNews 1.17.5.7 http://www.wilsonc.demon.co.uk/d9xananews.htm


Jeff Gaines

"Jeff Gaines" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have just bought a Buffalo TerraStation with 4x250GB hard drives. I
> have set it up as 2x250 GB Raid 1 arrays for back-up.
>
> The Buffalo is connected to the PC on a 1GB network link and the
> indicator is blue, showing it is connected at that speed.
>
> I copied 47.5 GB of data on to one array last night and it took 8 hours
> 14 minutes. If my maths is correct that's 5.77 GB/hr or 46.15 Gb/hr or
> 0.01 Gb/second.

Your calculation seems to be correct.

> I may well have got the maths completely wrong (and would appreciate a
> correction) but that seems slow to me.

I agree.

> Any thoughts on the sort of speed I can realistically expect?

Not a lot I'm afraid, judging by a quick web search. Two pages I looked at
were talking of 3-5MB/s (the higher with a four drive RAID 5 configuration),
2-3 times your figures. What was the average file size in the 47GB?

Alex

On 17/07/2005 Alex Fraser wrote:

> Not a lot I'm afraid, judging by a quick web search. Two pages I
> looked at were talking of 3-5MB/s (the higher with a four drive RAID
> 5 configuration), 2-3 times your figures. What was the average file
> size in the 47GB?


Thanks for your response Alex :-)

I've down-loaded Intel's most recent drivers and installed them and run
the diagnostics, all check out OK. The PC will sit in a spare room and
run scheduled backups so perhaps it's best just to let it get on with
it.

File sizes varied from 1KB to 8GB with tons of 47KB Flight Sim scenery
files - they are always slow!

--
Jeff Gaines
Damerham Hampshire UK
Using XanaNews 1.17.5.7 http://www.wilsonc.demon.co.uk/d9xananews.htm

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff Gaines says...
>
> I have just bought a Buffalo TerraStation with 4x250GB hard drives. I
> have set it up as 2x250 GB Raid 1 arrays for back-up.
>
> The Buffalo is connected to the PC on a 1GB network link and the
> indicator is blue, showing it is connected at that speed.
>
> I copied 47.5 GB of data on to one array last night and it took 8 hours
> 14 minutes. If my maths is correct that's 5.77 GB/hr or 46.15 Gb/hr or
> 0.01 Gb/second.
>
> I may well have got the maths completely wrong (and would appreciate a
> correction) but that seems slow to me.
>
> Any thoughts on the sort of speed I can realistically expect?
>
What was the speed of the computer you were sending it from? Are you
using suitable cable?


--
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

On 17/07/2005 Conor wrote:

> What was the speed of the computer you were sending it from? Are you
> using suitable cable?

It's got a 3 GHz Prescott processor and 1GB RAM and I was using the
cable that came with the Buffalo. The 'source' HD's (on the PC) are
200GB SATA drives and those on the Buffalo are WD IDE drives I think.

Both the PC and the Buffalo are reporting a 1Gb/s connection.

--
Jeff Gaines
Damerham Hampshire UK
Using XanaNews 1.17.5.7 http://www.wilsonc.demon.co.uk/d9xananews.htm

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff Gaines
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On 17/07/2005 Conor wrote:
>
>> What was the speed of the computer you were sending it from? Are you
>> using suitable cable?
>
>It's got a 3 GHz Prescott processor and 1GB RAM and I was using the
>cable that came with the Buffalo. The 'source' HD's (on the PC) are
>200GB SATA drives and those on the Buffalo are WD IDE drives I think.
>
>Both the PC and the Buffalo are reporting a 1Gb/s connection.
>
Will the terrastation support RAID5? Because, the way I see it, you've
wasted 250GB of storage and lost some performance by setting it up as
mirror sets.
--
Clint Sharp

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff Gaines says...
> On 17/07/2005 Conor wrote:
>
> > What was the speed of the computer you were sending it from? Are you
> > using suitable cable?
>
> It's got a 3 GHz Prescott processor and 1GB RAM and I was using the
> cable that came with the Buffalo. The 'source' HD's (on the PC) are
> 200GB SATA drives and those on the Buffalo are WD IDE drives I think.
>
> Both the PC and the Buffalo are reporting a 1Gb/s connection.
>
Have you tried altering the MTU settings for the network cards?


--
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Clint Sharp
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff Gaines
><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>On 17/07/2005 Conor wrote:
>>
>>> What was the speed of the computer you were sending it from? Are you
>>> using suitable cable?
>>
>>It's got a 3 GHz Prescott processor and 1GB RAM and I was using the
>>cable that came with the Buffalo. The 'source' HD's (on the PC) are
>>200GB SATA drives and those on the Buffalo are WD IDE drives I think.
>>
>>Both the PC and the Buffalo are reporting a 1Gb/s connection.
>>
>Will the terrastation support RAID5? Because, the way I see it, you've
>wasted 250GB of storage and lost some performance by setting it up as
>mirror sets.
And after sleeping I realise the performance of the disks would be
degraded slightly with RAID5 but it still seems silly to use mirror sets
if it supports RAID5
--
Clint Sharp

On 18/07/2005 Conor wrote:

> Have you tried altering the MTU settings for the network cards?

Thanks for your replies Clint and Conor :-)

I set up 'Jumbo Frames' on the Buffalo and the Intel NIC, they seem a
bit sensitive so that may have been an issue.

The Buffalo does do RAID5 but my plan was to have a reasonably
fool-proof data back up that I could set up and forget, apart from
routine maintenance. I use Smart Synch Pro for backups and it sends me
an email when it starts, stops or has an error. Probably unnecessary
but it's fun!

I wonder if I made a fundamental mistake in setting things up. I had
the Buffalo connected to the server using the Intel NIC and both with
fixed addresses in the 192.169.2.n range. The server was connected to
my home network using its second NIC, a Realtek, using the router's
DHCP and the 192.168.1.n range.

The reason for this was to try and take advantage of the gigabit
connection between server and Buffalo since my router is 100Mb/s like
most.

I started a backup last night at 6 p.m. and it was about 80% done at
9:15 this morning. That's 15 hours and it was still running, and that's
only to the first array, the second hasn't even started.

I have just re-configured things so I just use the Intel NIC and both
the server and Buffalo are connected directly to the router using
DHCP, although this means the Buffalo will now run at 100Mb/s.

I aborted the backup up, re-configured as above and re-started the back
up at 9:20. I'll let you know what happens :-)


--
Jeff Gaines
Damerham Hampshire UK
Using XanaNews 1.17.5.7 http://www.wilsonc.demon.co.uk/d9xananews.htm

"Jeff Gaines" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 18/07/2005 Conor wrote:
>
> > Have you tried altering the MTU settings for the network cards?
>
> Thanks for your replies Clint and Conor :-)
>
> I set up 'Jumbo Frames' on the Buffalo and the Intel NIC, they seem a
> bit sensitive so that may have been an issue.

What do you mean, "a bit sensitive"?

> The Buffalo does do RAID5 but my plan was to have a reasonably
> fool-proof data back up that I could set up and forget, apart from
> routine maintenance.

How does RAID5 make a difference to this?

[snip]
> I wonder if I made a fundamental mistake in setting things up. I had
> the Buffalo connected to the server using the Intel NIC and both with
> fixed addresses in the 192.169.2.n range. The server was connected to
> my home network using its second NIC, a Realtek, using the router's
> DHCP and the 192.168.1.n range.

I can't see any reason to think that is a "fundamental mistake". I would
probably have done the same.

[snip]
> I have just re-configured things so I just use the Intel NIC and both
> the server and Buffalo are connected directly to the router using
> DHCP, although this means the Buffalo will now run at 100Mb/s.

At the transfer rate you've given, that shouldn't make much (if any)
difference.

Alex