NSS6100 1TB Raid 5 Network Speed

Unanswered Question
Oct 21st, 2009

HI
has anyone found an issue with speed of the NSS6100 with 4 250gbWD drives installed as shipped

i am using Dual Nics running at 1000mbps, both lan lights are GREEN and the web interface shows this
it is currently running on a CISCO Switch (2010 Managed Gigabit Switch). file transfer from ANY pc

on the network is very slow. infact it took 8 hours to transfer 73gb and 15 minutes to transfer 213mb

all computers we are running on the network are running at 1000mbps and are all connected to the switch

there is NO encryption on the drives however we are using private folders (secured folders)

the NAS is in the forrest with windows 2003 sbs and exchange loaded on all servers, the NAS authenticates

with the sbs 2003 server and all is fine.....its just file transfer speeds are less then exceptable.

we have made a windows xp file server which is only running at 100mbps and it outperforms the $6000 NAS

any ideas? i really wouldnt like to have to wear the product as this was a big investment with the company we

are working for. we origianally started of with the NSS200 and that was excrutiatingly slow so we suggested the

NSS6100 and thats just as slow!

NSS6100

Raid 5

WD 250gb HDD x 4

Dual NIC both at 1000mbps

Firmware version 1.14 (Latest)

No drive encryption

Secured Folders

Brenton

CD-FM

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
mattyboy123 Thu, 10/22/2009 - 11:54

Yes, I have 2 NSS4000's that have the 4x250's that shipped with the unit. I have been having the same problems myself. Throughput is abysmal. I personally think this is a product flaw, but when I spoke to support, they just said "that's just the way it is". It seems like the hardware inside is massively underspecced. Quite often I will get transfer rates of approx 5-8MB/s. Modern hard drives are capable of more like 100MB/s, and that is just single spindles, not a raid array. To put dual-Gig ports on this and allow bonding them together when the device can not even saturate a single 100Mbit link is misleading at best, and poor engineering at worst.

clindoan Thu, 10/22/2009 - 12:28

I don't have this issue at all. Have you do the route trace to verify if it is the network issue ? IF you are using the drag and drop from CIFS connect, the local PC resource needs to be factor in for the performance as well. Lot of memory definitely will help the performance. Can you test out FTP (Fizilla, or any FTP application ) to see if there is a different from your PC to NAS.  I bet you will see a big different. If you see it. It is the resource from your local PC caused the slowness.

Take a look at the public independent testing from Tolly.  That the benchmark for the NAS. Here is the link:

http://www.tolly.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=208254PO (you need to register to see the document- no cost)

mattyboy123 Thu, 10/22/2009 - 14:58

The machine I was using for testing has 8Gb of ram and a recent core2Duo with a gigabit card. I have isolated the NAS and the PC on their own SGE2000 switch with nothing else on it.

Our other users that all see poor performance are running a mixture of xp, vista and w7.

The support person pointed me to this article http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_nas/Itemid,190/chart in which they were getting 15MB/s (still extremely poor, but better than I am getting). When I search for this issue on the net I see a lot of people complaining about poor performance out of this nas. Is it possible that my 2 (and a few others out there by the sound of it) are badly configured.

I found this thread interesting. Particularly the "Looks like hard disks are not the problem on the NSS4000:" post that detailed the throughput of the individual disks versus the raid array, although even 28MB/s is not exactly setting a record for drive speed......

http://forums.linksysbycisco.com/linksys/board/message?board.id=Network_Storage&message.id=6331

Is this post relevant?

I guess I now have a document (thanks clindoan) that says how the unit should be behaving speedwise. I might see if I can replicate these results, as I either have 2 faulty units that need replacing, or I have a configuration issue.

Cheers,

Matt

clindoan Tue, 12/08/2009 - 09:58

Hi,

   I like to re-visit this issue to find out if everything is working good for you. If there is anything that I can help to make your operation of the NSS more easier. Please let me know.

Regards,

CD

markicardy Thu, 01/14/2010 - 09:09

Did you ever get to the bottom of this.   I just picked up a NSS6000 and I have to say......what a heap of junk!!  I have spent way to much of my time already on getting this divice to stay available on my test network.

I have it hooked up to a Linksys SRW2008 switch, the NSS6000 Nic's are configured for fall over.., and I have a laptop plugged into the same switch..  very simple test network.

Firmware Version1.16-3 (Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:10:09 +0000)


This is my ping:

Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.10.249: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64

CISCO, this is a poor product!!!!

clindoan Thu, 01/14/2010 - 12:30

Hi markicardy,

   I am sorry to hear you are running into this problem. I also have the NSS6100 but found no issue at all with V1.16.3. The ping test indicated to me there is problem within your network. More likely  a bad cable connected in your network caused the requested time out. You need to trouble shoot so each of network device work correctly. I would recommend tests as follow:

Test 1: Ping your router 192.168.10.1  (Make sure the cable from your PC to router is good)

     Result: if there is no requested time out. Cable and router is good.

     - If requested time out is seen, replace with a good cable.

Test 2: As the result you posted. Replace a ethernet cable from NSS to router

     - Retested.

The inconsistent of the ping's result is network instability.  Either one of the reason causing this error:

     1. Bad cable in the network where data pass through (very common problem- one bad pin can caused this error)

     2. Incompatible network protocol

     3. Bad ethernet port

Please try out that test and let me know. When your network is fixed, I think you can find the use of NSS6100 is enjoyable.

boyan_zlatkov Sun, 02/07/2010 - 01:48

Hello,

I i'm in the same trouble with our NSS6000 (using 2pcs of Seagate ES 750GB in RAID1). Attached are the ping screenshot and all the logs from NSS6000.

The device was delivered with 1.12 firmware version. And worked fine for more than a year.

30.11.2009 was the day i decided to upgrade with the last version - 1.16.

Big mistake - now you can see in which moments the NSS is accessable (the ping screenshot). It's role is to be File Server in our company, but more than 2 months i didn't found any solution. Tried everything - replacing cables, routers, switches, different settings........with no result.The same settings with 1.12 version is OK, with 1.16 - it's not working. I even tried to downgrade to 1.12 but it seems that is impossible.

Please, can someone help me with this problem

Thanks in advance,

Boyan.

Attachment: 
David Hornstein Sun, 02/07/2010 - 02:14

I have upgraded my NSS4100 and NSS6100 to version 1.16 with no problem,  the log seem to indicate a issue.

I hope all the folks here have used approved vendor AVL list of hard drives, mentioning Seagate ES doesn't tell anyone the model number.

I can see that everyone in this posting should speak with the folks at the Small Business Support Center, to get their issues resolved or explained.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/support/tsd_cisco_small_business_support_center_contacts.html

regards Dave.

boyan_zlatkov Sun, 02/07/2010 - 02:36

Thanks Dave,

I've upgraded to 1.16 with no problems too.

As i said, more then 1 year NSS6000 worked fine with 2pcs. Seagate ES.2: ST3750330NS in RAID1.

My mistake is that didn't check the AVL list, now i see that ES.2 is "in trouble" with Raid arrays.

Due to the HDD failure yeastarday i have replaced one of them with Seagate ES: ST3750330NS which now i see that is approved for use in NSS6000.

As Raid1 is rebuilded successfuly i'm still in trouble with network access - the same ping problem.

May using of not approved HDD cause this network problem?

I'll try to remove the other ES.2 disk and will report the result here.

brenton.dicker Sun, 02/07/2010 - 18:27

my suggestion is sell it and load SME server on an old workstation with sata...... we got speeds of 106mbps on a small atom processor box with domestic hdds in it....SME has all the security protocols that the Nas has and has a nice user interface....supports Imap and Pop home drives and windows domain logons.....it uses SAMBA which is what the Nas uses

If you have any questions about SME just send me an email brentondicker$#@#$gmail.com remove $#  #$

boyan_zlatkov Sun, 02/07/2010 - 23:46

Thanks Brenton,

I'm looking only for safety storage for company data. No need for speed, we are using only small documents (office and photos).

Now i'm happy to say that the problem is gone - i just pull out the network cable from the second LAN port and now the NSS is accessable and in perfect condition.

Our system admin just pluged in the both LAN ports of NSS to our Cisco managed switch with Gb ports. And this is happened the same day that i have upgraded the firmware. I don't have access to the switch (don't know anything about it's Gb settings), just pull out the second LAN and the problem is gone.

Thanks to all.

Enjoy your Cisco products!

brenton.dicker Sun, 02/07/2010 - 18:23

the ping timeouts are due to the Nas not being able to Sucsessfully conect with an auto negotiation on the lan ports, if you have a cisco managed switch try setting the ports used to 1000mbs full or 100mbs full and see if it fixes the issue

the problem with the nas not connecting from server 2003 is CIFS is disabled by default i had our company MCSE tell us that problem! no one else seems to have fixed the problem there yet: theres the answer!

and the speed issue is always going to be there..... we have a feeling its the way that the Security stack is implimented..... i was transfering Gb files in minutes before we setup private secured folders!!

as stated before cisco have no knowlege of this product behaving as it does!

Brenton

Actions

This Discussion

Related Content