From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LT2j9-0006rG-Pj for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:24:47 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BF983E0510; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E089E0510 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0F164253 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:24:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.535 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zitrgKEijzGl for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:24:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E058642CC for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:24:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LT2it-00042T-Ms for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:24:33 +0000 Received: from c-98-215-178-6.hsd1.in.comcast.net ([98.215.178.6]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:24:31 +0000 Received: from reader by c-98-215-178-6.hsd1.in.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:24:31 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Harry Putnam Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: homemade nas setup Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:24:10 -0600 Organization: Still searching... Message-ID: <873af0l6n9.fsf@newsguy.com> References: <87y6wtlksy.fsf@newsguy.com> <4982EB00.2010309@smash-net.org> <87myd8lk46.fsf@newsguy.com> <498383DA.5070309@smash-net.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-215-178-6.hsd1.in.comcast.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:AOqNc5bqi48iCDTwHY7cn2rHgZU= Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 3e02dc6d-ad9d-4d6d-86c4-52ced76719a6 X-Archives-Hash: 6e6e3b5d890ae64d89a33ea25c40291f Norman Rie=C3=9F writes: >> Is it connected into 10/100 or 1000 (gigabit) setup? >> =20 > It is a gigabit setup. NFS read is about 30-34MB/s, writing is > considerably slower with 15MB/s. So writing is a bit slow. But as i do > not need fast storage i did not investigate. And it must be mentioned, > that the whole data is in AES. Being AES should have a pretty dramatic impact right? or is it not decrypted and just bounced from one place to another? > I use this share like a local harddisk. There is nothing like "Oh, this > is on remote storage, i will do differently." I do > everything i do on a local disk, and i did not find anything that would > not work due to lack of performance. Admitted i do not do much > performancecritical stuff. Thanks for very good input. What you report beats the snot out of the WD `My Book World Edition' I'm testing out. I only tried a few tests and they weren't done rigorously like someone benchmarking would have to do. I made no attempt to control what else might be running, other than not purposely starting anything. =20 I tried copying 950MB of graphic files across gigabit lan (winXP to the Book) ... it took 3 min 40 seconds. (about 4mb sec) Whereas copying the same data from one machine to another (windowsXP) took 40 seconds. (Incidently.. that appears to be a bit faster than what you report at=20 23mb sec) Might have something to do with the fact that it is identical filesystem to identical filesystem (ntfs) Copying the same data from a winXP to my gentoo box across 10/100 lan took 1 min 10 seconds. (A little less than what you see at 13mb sec) So even in a case where the measurement should have been skewed in favor of the Book, it was over 300% slower. And in the case that should have been comparable it was over 500% slower. Unless I've made some horrible error in the math, which is not unlikely, I think my test shows 4mb per second. (I just divided the MB by the seconds), that is so far under what you see, that alone tells me to return this dog and spend the money ($229) building up my own.