Aweful "Gigabit" speeds with Time Capsule

Discussion in 'Mac Accessories' started by Toprock, Mar 6, 2008.

  1. Toprock macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #1
    I connected my Macbook to my new Time Capsule with Cat5e cable expecting near gigabit speeds. I tried two separate cables (both cat5e) and both were slower than 14MBps. I know I shouldn't expect the full 128MBps gigabit, but I'm really disappointed.

    Has anyone managed to get decent transfers with a Time Capsule?

    Is it common for devices advertised as Gigabit to perform more like 100mbps devices?
     
  2. HLdan macrumors 603

    HLdan

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    #2
    Wow, that's really slow. Connected via Ethernet I get 80Mbps and with Wireless N I get 60Mbps. It should be much higher than 80 connected via Ethernet but nothing works as advertised.
     
  3. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #3
    Is that transfer speeds to your Time Capsule disk or to other devices on your network?
     
  4. Toprock thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #4
    Phew! Okay, there's hope :)

    Maybe I'll get a cat6 and a stp cat5e cable and see how they work.
     
  5. Toprock thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #5
    It's from my Macbook directly to the Time Capsule via cat5e.
     
  6. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #6
    Some early reports where showing transfers to the disk itself at around 12-20mbps. My AEBS goes at a blistering 6mbps to the USB disks. To other machines I can get 250mbps via wifi and 400+mbps via ethernet.
     
  7. Toprock thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #7
    So you're saying it's the Time Capsule write speeds that suck?
     
  8. Toprock thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #8
    Is it possible that it's transferring via WiFi even though I'm connected via ethernet?

    I'll try disabling my Airport when I get home.
     
  9. pondie84 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #9
    Yes that's definately possible. My macmini used wifi even though I had ethernet connected.
     
  10. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #10
    i hope your not trying to backup your timemachine, because i get AWFUL write speeds when doing that (600kb-2mb). took me 3 days to backup my imac.

    havent tried moving files or anything, im only running on 802.11n at 2.5ghz but :(
     
  11. Toprock thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #11
    In this case I'm just transfering files.
     
  12. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #12
    ok well that is extremely odd...i just copied a large file to it and got 7.9mbps as my fasest copy (running on n/g mode) so thast pretty close to the 150mbps rating...
     
  13. Sesshi macrumors G3

    Sesshi

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Location:
    One Nation Under Gordon
    #13
    You're not going to get anywhere near actual gigabit speeds. More like uber-megabit. We're not talking about speeds Mac-to-Mac which should be a whole lot faster (but still well under theoretical Gigabit speed that people assume), but Mac-to-TC. If you want network performance beyond the uber-Megabit level on a Gigabit network, you need to invest in a proper high-performance non-Apple (and more expensive) NAS, or a Mac acting as server.
     
  14. Zoowatch macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Sheffield, UK
    #14
    I am transferring 612 GB in about 34 hours to TC... very slow!

    And it was done using cat5e cable from belkin.
     
  15. Diode macrumors 68020

    Diode

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Location:
    Washington DC
    #15
    Anyone try swapping out a Cat5E cable for a Cat6? I know "theoretically" it won't make a difference but people on the apple site are claiming 10MB/sec (~76mbit) with Cat6 ... still not gigabit ... but marginally better and probably close to the saturation of the controller.
     
  16. Sesshi macrumors G3

    Sesshi

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Location:
    One Nation Under Gordon
    #16
    10MBytes/sec write speed should be achievable - that's within the Thecus N2100, an 'upper-basic' NAS's speed. Exact throughput will depend on the file sizes too.

    5e->6 is unlikely to make any difference. More the sort of data you're trying to pass.

    The difference between a relatively low-end NAS like the Time Capsule / the aforementioned N2100 / etc and even a cheap Mac/PC with a gigabit interface is that it's very easy to get throughput in excess of 30MBytes/sec without any special effort with the 'full' computers.
     
  17. Takeo macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    #17
    I have a 1T TC connected directly with a Cat6 cable and Airport turned off and I get about 12 MB/sec transferring files. Pretty pathetic. I've heard people point out that Gigabit is faster than USB 2.0. True, in theory. In reality, transferring large amounts of data to a USB 2.0 external is radically faster than the Time Capsule. You no longer have a networked drive, but I'm starting to think that since I don't care about backup up my laptop (just my iMac) I may have been better off with a USB drive for use with Time Machine. But I tried that first with a Lacie drive and Time Machine gave me constant errors. And the drive would lock up the Finder... and fail to remount after sleep... etc. Huge pain. I had to restart the drive about once a day. But it was a million times faster. Ugh. BTW... the Lacie drive was formatted properly (G.U.I.D partition and Mac OS Journaled).
     
  18. belvdr macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #18
    The slowdown could be anything from inefficient firmware on the NIC, to drivers, to a slow disk interface. If you're not getting GigE speeds with CAT 5e, then changing to CAT 6 is not going to help.

    If someone wanted to test it, they could take the drive out of the TC, and place it directly in the machine, or in a USB 2.0/Firewire enclosure to eliminate the TC itself. If the speed persists, which I doubt, then the drive is most likely at fault. My guess is this is something related to the firmware/OS on the TC itself.
     
  19. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #19
    thats a pretty odd thing to happen. when i transfer files directly via cat5e with my airport turned on (used only by my dads ibook) i get around 25MB/s-30MB/s. i think that its pretty quick, sure it can go way faster but its fine enough for me.

    backing up is pathetically slow, mainly because the HD is shooting all over the place searching for files, so that is understandable.

    omg. gigabit IS faster. it is MUCH faster. USB2.0 is probably the most pathetic and useless data transfer types out of the main 5 (ethernet, usb, fw400, fw800, esata).

    the problem here is not with the cables, but with either the firmware, the hard drive, or how apple have produced the time capsule.

    when i transfer files from my iMac to my MBP via gigabit, i get around 60MB/s-70MB/s copy rate, on the same network if i copy from TC i get around the 30MB/s mark, so gigabit is CLEARLY not the issue here.

    if i tried the same thing with my LaCie drive, i would get 20MB's.

    LaCie drives are pathetic, dont even buy them they are a waste of time. they have caused every computer i have put them on to crash and burn (so to speak).



    yes i agree, if someone had the time to test it i am sure they would find that the errors lye in the coding of the TC, or the firmware. it could possibly be from the way apple error checks data read/written? maybe because it is a 'backup' drive they implement a more robust method of checking errors? eh
     
  20. EdbBob macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #20
    Hello all,

    Let's get one thing straight:

    Mb/s or Mbps is Mega bit per second (b=bit)

    MB/s or MBps is Mega Byte per second (B=Byte)

    So a "B" is 8 times more data that a "b" :)

    I recently came over form the PC universe, and I've never seen Gb networks running at 1000 Mb/s. A good setup with good cables and a proper Gb switch gives you more like 250 Mb/s. That's about 30 MB/s, wich is close to copying from disk to disk in the real world (not one large file, but several files in different sizes). To have higher performance than that, you need faster disks :)

    A typical 300 GB harddrive is 300.000 MB meaning it'll take 10.000 seconds to back up. That's about 3 hours...
     
  21. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #21
    1. yea everyone forgets, i know i do. most of the time i will put megaBytes, or megaBits. depending on the situation.

    2. firstly, welcome! a very wise choice! secondly, everything is a lie, so nothing is as they say!
    personally, copying large files over my gigabit network can be anywhere from 20-50MBps, reading from sata300 drives is much faster.

    3. i reckon the typical speeds will dramatically increase, especially since sata 300 has come about, read/write speeds can easily go above 40MBps. so yea.. go hard drive s:)
     
  22. MacBoobsPro macrumors 603

    MacBoobsPro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #22
    I did 500GB in about 26 hours with ethernet.
     
  23. Matsuto macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    #23
    Hello guys!
    I have the same! I am really disappointed with the ethernet speed of my TC...

    I have a cat 5 cable and cat 6, does change a thing...

    When copying files over the network, I get between 10 to 15 Mb/s or (80 to 120 MB/s)

    I believe this is extremely slow for gigabit.. I now I should not expect to get 100 Mb/s (800 MB/s) as my hard drive would certainly not follow... But a good 50 Mb/s (400MB/s) should be totally doable... and this is apparently not the case for everyone of us...


    ps: I forgot to mention that my TC is connected to my network and is set up as a bridge... But I'm directly connected to the TC so the speed between the mac and the TC should be Gigabit and then it should go to 100 MB/s (12,5 Mb/s) for the rest of the network? or am I wrong somewhere?
     
  24. belvdr macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #24
    In reality, the biggest bottleneck to fast transfers across GigE is hard drives. Upgrading to CAT6 from CAT5e will likely change nothing.

    Tom's Hardware did a review of this recently.

    Considering this, it sounds like the TC's write speeds are the culprit.
     
  25. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #25
    i might have said this already, but yea - the culprit seems to be the HD (though i thought it was a "server grade HD", havent pulled it apart to find out). if it is gigabit ethernet then there should be no problem there.

    Matsuto, can i ask what computer you are copying from? what is the HD specs that are in that machine (dekstop/laptop HD, rpm, etc).
     

Share This Page