Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Storage

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old December 2, 2012, 05:38 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,561
Default

The router is rated for USB3 - It's just strange that he's nailing exactly what you'd see on 100 Mbit/s speeds - But JD does bring up an interesting idea. Share the HDD on a computer that's on the same router and see if you get the higher speeds. That way we can pretty much pin-point that it's the router that is the issue, and not the network.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old December 2, 2012, 06:51 PM
JD's Avatar
JD JD is offline
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,815

My System Specs

Default

Still, it's translating NTFS and then it's sending it via SAMBA since the router is Linux-based. All this on a low-power MIPS (?) CPU. It just doesn't have the horsepower to deliver 85MB/s throughput. You'd need a full x86 Linux box to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old December 2, 2012, 09:17 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,561
Default

You might be entirely right, my first thought was actually overhead, but it doesn't hurt to investigate fully. Like I said, it's just strange that it's around the 100 speeds. I think even a crappy low powered box like that can push though more then 8 MB/s though, but that's just an idea in my head. I'd imagine we'd of heard of such an issue before elsewhere, since more routers are based this way.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old December 2, 2012, 09:31 PM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD View Post
Still, it's translating NTFS and then it's sending it via SAMBA since the router is Linux-based. All this on a low-power MIPS (?) CPU. It just doesn't have the horsepower to deliver 85MB/s throughput. You'd need a full x86 Linux box to do that.
This is exactly it. Samba in itself is a horrid file sharing method in linux and just sucks balls generally for good throughput.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old December 3, 2012, 04:54 AM
JD's Avatar
JD JD is offline
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,815

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LarkStarr View Post
I'd imagine we'd of heard of such an issue before elsewhere, since more routers are based this way.
Any good router review where they test USB throughput says this...it's nothing new. That being said, I couldn't find anything quickly about this router, thus all my posts have been on prior knowledge/assumptions.

If you want to share files, buy a proper NAS unit, don't use your router.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old December 4, 2012, 01:14 AM
Allstar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 559
Default

would a router-connected drive still be fast enough for 1080p playback though?
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old December 4, 2012, 05:39 AM
enaberif's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgahree, AB
Posts: 10,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Generic User #2 View Post
would a router-connected drive still be fast enough for 1080p playback though?
No. I tried this and it buffered like crazy.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes