LAN file transfer speed

shiro · November 18, 2016 at 8:06 PM

Quote from Gaudi

Have you tested your network using iperf3?
For LibreELEC there is an addon, other systems have their own compiles.

I did the test, results are below:

Code

Mediacenter:~ # iperf3 -s
-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on 5201
-----------------------------------------------------------
Accepted connection from 192.168.0.177, port 54425
[  5] local 192.168.0.178 port 5201 connected to 192.168.0.177 port 54426
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  5]   0.00-1.00   sec   110 MBytes   921 Mbits/sec
[  5]   1.00-2.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
[  5]   2.00-3.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
[  5]   3.00-4.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
[  5]   4.00-5.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
[  5]   5.00-6.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
[  5]   6.00-7.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
[  5]   7.00-8.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
[  5]   8.00-9.00   sec   112 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
[  5]   9.00-10.00  sec   112 MBytes   940 Mbits/sec
[  5]  10.00-10.02  sec  2.57 MBytes   942 Mbits/sec
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  5]   0.00-10.02  sec  0.00 Bytes  0.00 bits/sec                  sender
[  5]   0.00-10.02  sec  1.10 GBytes   940 Mbits/sec                  receiver
-----------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on 5201
-----------------------------------------------------------

Display More

Dont know for what exactly I need to look, but I see 942 Mbits/sec badnwidth, so I assume its okay on my 1Gbit LAN.
192.168.0.178 is HTPC (mediacenter) and 192.168.0.177 is win 10 PC.
The mediacenter was server, the win10 PC was client. But it doesnt work oppositely, dont know why. When I tried to run iperf3 from htpc (connected to console via putty), and hit enter, it just make one empty space (like empty row, without any text) and nothing happened. Dont know if this was because of putty, or it indicates a problem.

Quote from trent

Is the target drive the same one that LE is installed to?
Or are you using a secondary drive? If so what format etc?

No, LE is on SSD. Only LE, nothing else.
Movies and Music are on HDD where I copy all the data over the LAN (WD black 1TB 7200rpm)

I also try to disable "large send offload" in driver settings on win10 PC as I read somewhere it helped some people. Nothing change.

pajretX · November 18, 2016 at 8:23 PM

What file system have you got on that HDD with the movies and music of yours? FAT/NTFS/EXTx?

shiro · November 19, 2016 at 8:12 AM

Sorry, forgot to write....its NTFS

Grimson · November 19, 2016 at 8:26 AM

Quote from shiro

Sorry, forgot to write....its NTFS

Bad choice. Reformat as ext3 at least.

shiro · November 19, 2016 at 8:45 AM

May the NTFS be a culprit of this slow speed? If yes, even then it is weird that read from HDD is 80-90MB/s and write is only 20-30MB/s.
And will I have access to that HDD from win10 over LAN if I reformat it to ext3 ? I think yes, because of Samba will handle it, but rather ask for sure

Grimson · November 19, 2016 at 8:51 AM

Quote from shiro

May the NTFS be a culprit of this slow speed? If yes, even then it is weird that read from HDD is 80-90MB/s and write is only 20-30MB/s.
And will I have access to that HDD from win10 over LAN if I reformat it to ext3 ? I think yes, because of Samba will handle it, but rather ask for sure

The free NTFS driver in Linux is quite crappy, so it's quite possible. Of course you can still access it over samba.

shiro · November 19, 2016 at 10:42 AM

So...I did the reformat to ext3 through bootable GParted.
And...yay, it works
Currently copying some data back to HDD, and it goes about 70-90MB/s. Hope it stays this way

Thanks very much to everyone for tips and solutions.

**escalade** · November 19, 2016 at 3:41 PM

It's a well known fact the NTFS R/W driver under linux is using FUSE which is user space and dog slow. For performance use any filesystem that is natively supported by the kernel. You should probably use EXT4 over EXT3 as well.

shiro · November 20, 2016 at 8:18 AM

True, I read somewhere about it. I just didnt think that it could be so slow. Especially when it have no problem with read speed, only with writes.
Are there any good advantages in ext4 comparet to ext3? Maybe I format the HDD into it later, when have time for moving about 600GB of data again

Grimson · November 20, 2016 at 9:12 AM

You can read here: ext2-ext3-ext4 this page also shows you how to convert ext3 to ext4 without having to format the drive.

**infinity85** · November 20, 2016 at 8:37 PM

This thread here is the perfect opportunity to confirm whether and how much ntfs big_writes mount parameter improves transfer speeds. As escalade stated, it is because of the ntfs driver and its fuse implementation.

See here the discussion and further links: Network: smb & ntfs config mods #807

I suggested and tested some months ago the big_writes parameter for ntfs mounts, which is said to achieve a big leap in transfer speeds while writing. Unfortunately I could only test it to a SBC (odroid C2) which is naturally limited. But you could test it now with your more powerful x86 based machine with GBLan, like escalades suggested back then.

@Grimson
If I'm not wrong: The current v7.90.008 ALPHA should contain the "big_writes" parameter for ntfs mounting. So if you could repeat your NTFS test from the beginning with this current Alpha build (just for testing), then I'm quite sure you'll achieve at least 60MB/s instead of the 30MB/s that you had before.
Of course it's kind of inconvenient to reformat an HDD. But perhaps you have another laying around for testing. Anyways, it would be great if you could try this to have a confirmation about the acutal effect of big_writes on more powerful systems (compared to SBCs like Raspberries and Odroids).

Cheers

shiro · November 21, 2016 at 9:11 AM

Well, maybe next time in the future, when I will not have too much data on it. So it will not take very long to copy them back
I dont have another HDD for test.

**infinity85** · November 21, 2016 at 2:42 PM

Quote from shiro

Well, maybe next time in the future, when I will not have too much data on it. So it will not take very long to copy them back
I dont have another HDD for test.

Aah what a shame, too late again

Anyways, the Krypton builds should improve it significantly (big_writes seems included in master)

LAN file transfer speed

Similar Threads

[9.0.0] LibreELEC builds for MX2/G18

[7.0.3.3d] LibreELEC 7.0 for S805