Small Wireless network SLOW file copy

[lotus503]

Hi all and thanks for any insights in advance.

My Configuration

Comcast Cable
Range Mxx wireless router
Matching USB card

1. PC connected by cable directly into Router
2. One Nas server connected Wireless

Everything works fine, both machines connect to Internet no issues, Have Shared folders setup.

I am attempting to move a large amount of Media content roughly a terabyte from My Shuittle PC to my NAS.

So I started to copy roughly a 50 gig folder from shuttle to nas, let it go roughly 12 hours and only moved 24 gigs. Network utilization at most is 3%.

Seems super slow to me, I can handle a slow copy but Im counting on the network to allow streaming Video at some point.

Anyone have any insights as to why my 108mps is so slow?
I can connect via 127.0.0.1 on both machines and copy no problem, its fast.
I removed the reg key for scheduled tasks.

The issues is, Shuttle to Nas , Nas to Shuttle, both directions are slow.

Do I need to install Netbui?

I know there are roughly 3498324238974 problems with Microsoft networking
Im trying to just nail down a fast fix to get this all online

 

[spikespiegal]

Anyone have any insights as to why my 108mps is so slow?

Because you aren't running 108mps on that network - that's why.

Wireless NAS devices are horribly inefficient with grossly over-rated performance specs on a wired LAN, let alone a wireless one.

Some wireless NAS devices have the option on plugging them in via USB. That will certainly be faster for initial bulk file transfers.

Could be you router is detecting the connection 11b mode vs G, so you might want to try forcing all devices to G mode.

NetBUI won't help.

 

[lotus503]

Its actually a server I built as a NAS and I have 108 Wireless G forced so its definetly connecting at that.

So its not a wireless Nas device, its and actual server using a wireless USB card, check my Sig for the specs on both machines.

I have Wep 64bit enabled, could this be an issue?

 

[spikespiegal]

Sorry....I see those computer specs and I think it's just another Sig for somebody's gaming box and ignore it by reflex.

OK....I'm confused. May I ask why the bloody !&!$ you're running a dual opteron board with 3Ware controllers (love em'), but using a USB WiFi card? That's kind of like plugging a gigabit network card into an ISA slot and complaining about performance.

Could also be a media conflict between the gameing rig NIC and the router, so you might want to toggle the NIC on that box to 100/half and see happens, but I doubt it's the problem.

USB network adapters of any kind = evil, and I won't troubleshoot a network problem until the client removes them. Yes, they are that bad.

If you don't have roaming laptops, the most ideal way to do this would be to get an access point of the same brand you have as a router, and put it in bridge mode - if it can do this. Generally this provided more flexibility, reception strength and reliability over a WiFi NIC if the stations are fixed. Usually the price difference is only $20-30, but it's worth it.

Option two is to at least try a dedicated PCI Wi-Fi card, or borrow one. You can try disabling WEP and see what it does, but this would still indicate a problem with the USB Wi-Fi.

 

[lotus503]

Well I would agree that the USB card may be suspect that why I connected the NAS to the router via Cable just to rule out the USB card and same issue.

So I know its not the USB card. I mean im not a total novice. I need just enough bandwidth to stream Video, More is better but less wont work.

So the CPU , Mobo Combo is a bit over the top for a media server but I figured I could do it and have some decent hardware for something else if I need it.

So given that it gives bandwidth issues wireless or wired any ideas?

This has to be a network config issue.

 

[Aarondeep]

Not sure if this would help, but it did when I changed wireless channels. You may be getting interference from another network or other devices using the frequency nearby. You could use something like network stumbler to detect what channel the other APs are on nearby. I have found that channels 1,6,11 are usually the best choice.

 

[spidey07]

agreed on the channels. changing to 1, 6 or 11 normally resolves most wireless performance and connectivity problems.

 

[lotus503]

I will try changing the channels this afternoon, Its currently on 6.

If that doesnt work im going to install NetBui

I just need enough bandwidth to stream some video and audio.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: S0Lstice
I am attempting to move a large amount of Media content roughly a terabyte from My Shuittle PC to my NAS.

I understand you want decent wireless performance in the end for smaller jobs, but if you want to get this job done quickly, aren't there much better techniques available? E.g. connect the drive directly to the server (est. 9-10 hours at 30MB/s source drive speed).

With this sort of workload, I think "gigabit", not "wireless".

Originally posted by: S0Lstice
I have Wep 64bit enabled, could this be an issue?

WEP is deprecated; WAP should be as easy to configure with recent hardware, and be much more secure, and perform roughly the same at worst. Neither will perform as well as no security, but then you have no security.

 

[lotus503]

Well I will just use firewire for the large copy, still need to speed it all up enough to stream some media content

 

[Madwand1]

Cool, firewire should be able to at least roughly match your source drive's speed.

 

[nweaver]

encryption doesn't(shouldn't) slow your wireless down any significant amount. I have tested open, no wep, wep, wpa, wpa2, etc. No signifcant speed differneces at all. Thisi s enterprise level gear (CCX certified cards, Cisco 1200 series AP's, Faraday cage.

 

[Madwand1]

I vaguely remember some published benchmarks (probably a device review; probably for some wireless routers) that showed better performance without WEP. But I'm not really going to contest the point; frankly it doesn't really matter -- running without any security at all is not a reasonable option as far as I imagine, and I can barely imagine running without WAP -- I'd sooner replace the devices than go down to WEP personally, though I might consider WEP + SSID hiding + MAC filtering to be sufficient duct tape for some time, at least until I observe a break-in, as I have for WEP 128...

 

[Dravic]

at most that 108mbps wireless connection is going to top out at 40-60mbps (5-6MB). And thats with no interference and strong signal.

the inital transfer of gigs of data should be by wired network, or better yet, put the HD in the source server for the intial transfer.

 

[lotus503]

Thanks for the help everyone, I finanlly figured it out and solved the problem.

The issue was with my 3ware controllers, I dont have a backup battery so I had write caching disabled, for raid 5's

Once I enabled write caching everything flew

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
I vaguely remember some published benchmarks (probably a device review; probably for some wireless routers) that showed better performance without WEP. But I'm not really going to contest the point; frankly it doesn't really matter -- running without any security at all is not a reasonable option as far as I imagine, and I can barely imagine running without WAP -- I'd sooner replace the devices than go down to WEP personally, though I might consider WEP + SSID hiding + MAC filtering to be sufficient duct tape for some time, at least until I observe a break-in, as I have for WEP 128...

not the case with current DECENT gear. Note that I think most of the SOHO gear is pretty craptastic.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: S0Lstice
The issue was with my 3ware controllers, I dont have a backup battery so I had write caching disabled, for raid 5's

Once I enabled write caching everything flew

Ah, that's some performance-stealing option, if it's enough to slow down wireless transfers. I noted this myself, but using higher-speed networking. My controller software pops up a warning when RW caching is enabled; in this case, it could be more appropriate to pop up a performance warning when it's disabled.

 

[lotus503]

Yeah I was actually very shocked that it was essentially an IO problem. With it disabled

Hell in 24 hours I have copied about 800 gigs im getting 99% Network Util
The second I disable it I dropped down to right around %3