MBP trnsfer to ReadyNAS very slow

cloudskyy

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 16, 2016
11
0
Tamworth, UK
Hi all.



Just bought a few weeks ago a new ReadyNas 102 and put two 2TB disks onto my nas drive and thought it was configured properly, but since setting up

I am having massive problems with transfer rates which are atm about 0.62 mbit for write and about 16.2 mbps for read and I was xpecting quite better

performance to be honest.



I already tried to disable AV but haven't seen any change. Also tried with different options - still nothing changes.



Is here anybody who could at least tell me where I should start looking for a cause of such a low transfer rates?



At the moment I'm running mid 2014 MacbookPro and have a 2/5GHZ Virgin hub and it's been working just fine since I got it.



If anyone knowas anything that might help that'd much appreciated.
 

Tolien

macrumors member
Jul 20, 2005
31
13
First question is how are you connecting to it? If it's over wireless, try wired.
A lot of low end NAS hardware is woefully underpowered but that's about 10% of what you'd expect for a single disk. How is the NAS configured (i.e. what format are the disks, what is the NAS doing with them in terms of RAID)?
 

rigormortis

macrumors 68000
Jun 11, 2009
1,813
229
have you tried using afp versus samba?
is it a brand new nas and it might still be setting up the RAID ?
try giving the nas more ram. i have an readynas duo and i put 1024 mb of ram in it, with the thinking it would increase read and write buffers
are you sure you are connecting at 5ghz?
 

steve23094

macrumors 68030
Apr 23, 2013
2,611
1,330
Different brand and everything I know, but just pointing out so you explore all avenues.

I had much lower than expected transfer rates on a Synology Diskstation. Moving from SMB to AFP helped but ultimately it was down to a bug in DSM which eventually got fixed.
 

killawat

macrumors 65816
Sep 11, 2014
1,443
2,185
Afp implementation on the readynas gave me a lot of issues. Of course, we can always use samba but afp is best if backup sparse bundles and other macos specific things. Ultimately, I never got it to work. I setup a multihomed connection to an esxi machine hosting a Windows server VM running extremezip's version of AFP. I get excellent speeds that way.
 

duervo

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2011
2,306
1,031
Well, if you got it a few weeks ago, and you put those two drives in it and set them up the same day, I seriously doubt that the raid is still initializing. If it is, then you've got a more serious underlying issue, like a bad ReadyNas unit or some bad drives.

Have you checked the manufacturer's website for any firmware or OS updates? That would be one of the very first things I would do with any new piece of hardware. In fact, the release notes for some of the more recent ReadyNas OS updates have had things in them like: "Minor bug fixes and performance enhancements." That alone is enough for me to stop all other troubleshooting and make sure that you're at the latest release.

Also, if using Jumbo Frames, then don't. Keep the setup as simple as possible until you've addressed the issue.

Finally, I can't help but notice that you explicitly stated the WiFi bands of your Virgin hub. This suggests to me that you're running it over a WiFi network to your client. If so, then don't. This goes back to the point above about not using Jumbo Frames ... Keep it as simple as possible.

Once you've simplified things, and if performance is improved, then make one change at a time until performance dies again. At that point, you should have your answer. If performance is not improved after making things as simple as possible, then something has either been overlooked (most likely at this point,) or there is a hardware or software failure somewhere that needs to be addressed. I would lean towards hardware at that point, because there seems to be a consensus in the various product reviews that the unit "just works" with minimal configuration needed.

Then again, it could also be that their compatibility with OS X just totally sucks.
 

cloudskyy

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 16, 2016
11
0
Tamworth, UK
Well first of all thank to all of you guys for such a fast response and I'll try to answer to best to my knowledge as I'm not a specialist in this field I'm afraid.

First question is how are you connecting to it? If it's over wireless, try wired.
A lot of low end NAS hardware is woefully underpowered but that's about 10% of what you'd expect for a single disk. How is the NAS configured (i.e. what format are the disks, what is the NAS doing with them in terms of RAID)?
It's been connected via WiFi since I got it, and I have tried both 2.4 and 5Ghz frequencies without any luck unfortunately.
Both disks are in Raid1 setup wit X-Raid feature on and yes I have tried separate disks setups and again no difference at all.

have you tried using afp versus samba?
is it a brand new nas and it might still be setting up the RAID ?
try giving the nas more ram. i have an readynas duo and i put 1024 mb of ram in it, with the thinking it would increase read and write buffers
are you sure you are connecting at 5ghz?
It is a brand new unit as I bought it from the retailer in sealed condition. And I don't think that's the issue as Raid is already set up. And as I said I have tried both frequencies and no difference at all.

Afp implementation on the readynas gave me a lot of issues. Of course, we can always use samba but afp is best if backup sparse bundles and other macos specific things. Ultimately, I never got it to work. I setup a multihomed connection to an esxi machine hosting a Windows server VM running extremezip's version of AFP. I get excellent speeds that way.
That's something worth to give it a go, so will try this.

Well, if you got it a few weeks ago, and you put those two drives in it and set them up the same day, I seriously doubt that the raid is still initializing. If it is, then you've got a more serious underlying issue, like a bad ReadyNas unit or some bad drives.

Have you checked the manufacturer's website for any firmware or OS updates? That would be one of the very first things I would do with any new piece of hardware. In fact, the release notes for some of the more recent ReadyNas OS updates have had things in them like: "Minor bug fixes and performance enhancements." That alone is enough for me to stop all other troubleshooting and make sure that you're at the latest release.

Also, if using Jumbo Frames, then don't. Keep the setup as simple as possible until you've addressed the issue.

Finally, I can't help but notice that you explicitly stated the WiFi bands of your Virgin hub. This suggests to me that you're running it over a WiFi network to your client. If so, then don't. This goes back to the point above about not using Jumbo Frames ... Keep it as simple as possible.

Once you've simplified things, and if performance is improved, then make one change at a time until performance dies again. At that point, you should have your answer. If performance is not improved after making things as simple as possible, then something has either been overlooked (most likely at this point,) or there is a hardware or software failure somewhere that needs to be addressed. I would lean towards hardware at that point, because there seems to be a consensus in the various product reviews that the unit "just works" with minimal configuration needed.

Then again, it could also be that their compatibility with OS X just totally sucks.
Well it always might have been the unit, but not having any else to check I can not give an answer on that. And about the drives - one of them have one bad cluster, but I don't think that's the issue atm. Besides I tried to operate on separate disks and no difference at all.

Firmware update was the very first thing I have done with the unit and now it's running under 6.4.2 firmware version which is the latest version as far as I know.

And I'm pretty sure that jumbo frames are off as my MTU is set to 1500 and anything over that blows up my wifi for some reason. And I just ordered an adapter as I haven'g got ethernet port on my 13in MCB and then I'll check how's performance when wired. If nothing changes I'll return this piece of s**t and buy myself something else.
 

Gav2k

macrumors G3
Jul 24, 2009
9,218
1,584
Both devices being connected via wifi is bad. The virgin box isn't great to start with but the bad needs to be connected via cable for a better throughout.
 

cloudskyy

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 16, 2016
11
0
Tamworth, UK
Both devices being connected via wifi is bad. The virgin box isn't great to start with but the bad needs to be connected via cable for a better throughout.
Sorry that might be me not as specific as should be. Readynas is connected via ethernet cable to the hub, just MCB is connected wirelessly. But again need to wait when the adapter arrives and then I'll be able to check wether it's a problem caused by wifi
 

Gav2k

macrumors G3
Jul 24, 2009
9,218
1,584
Sorry that might be me not as specific as should be. Readynas is connected via ethernet cable to the hub, just MCB is connected wirelessly. But again need to wait when the adapter arrives and then I'll be able to check wether it's a problem caused by wifi
Ah that's good. What band you connecting too??
 

Gav2k

macrumors G3
Jul 24, 2009
9,218
1,584
If you log in to the router via 192.168.0.1 then tap advance you can look at the 5ghz band (it will offer more throughput). Change the channel, I'd personally go high in the range as looking in my area which is fairly dense the higher range isn't overpopulated. You can also tweak settings for range over throughput
 

cloudskyy

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 16, 2016
11
0
Tamworth, UK
If you log in to the router via 192.168.0.1 then tap advance you can look at the 5ghz band (it will offer more throughput). Change the channel, I'd personally go high in the range as looking in my area which is fairly dense the higher range isn't overpopulated. You can also tweak settings for range over throughput
Tried it and again no luck. really I'm closer and closer to returning it and buying something more reliable
 

Gav2k

macrumors G3
Jul 24, 2009
9,218
1,584
looking at the reviews for it. For smaller file transfers the speeds are slow. Even large file transfers are poor
 

cloudskyy

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 16, 2016
11
0
Tamworth, UK
looking at the reviews for it. For smaller file transfers the speeds are slow. Even large file transfers are poor
I think I've lost my patience and will just replace it with something more reliable.
Any suggestions? As I was thinking about getting myself WD My Clouds as I've seen some good reviews?
 

Gav2k

macrumors G3
Jul 24, 2009
9,218
1,584
I think I've lost my patience and will just replace it with something more reliable.
Any suggestions? As I was thinking about getting myself WD My Clouds as I've seen some good reviews?
Personally I'd go with qnap. They are very good. Scale well and are regularly updated.
 

Gav2k

macrumors G3
Jul 24, 2009
9,218
1,584
was looking on that one:
QNAP TS-251+-2G
Ah right got you. Yep nice unit. You can upgrade the ram later and if you decide to expand past the two bays there are 5-8 bay expansion units available.
 

mrex

macrumors 68040
Jul 16, 2014
3,281
1,348
europe
does your hub and cable support higher speed? is the cable atleast cat5e? using encryption? numbers on the first post indicates 100/10 connection (or 802.11n) rather than 1000/100 (or 802.11ac). if you are far away from the router, the transfer speed decrease alot especially with 5ghz band.

edit. does the hub/router support wifi ac?
 
Last edited:

rigormortis

macrumors 68000
Jun 11, 2009
1,813
229
hard disk drives have automatic error detection and correction. if anything says you have a bad cluster , the drive should be replaced. bad clusters are handled by the drive electronics and are not supposed to be visible to the operating system, when a bad sector is found, the hard disk moves them to a bank of spare sectors. once the drive has ran out of spare sectors , the drive is considered bad


my readynas duo said there was a few on mine, but i just ignore it , because its redundant