7270 und der USB 2.0 / Wie schnell ist er denn nun wirklich @maybe Bommel

[gfuer]

The problem is neither the kernel nor USB interface.

IMO the actual limitation, which prevents higher throughputs than the maximum reported above, is likely the limited CPU power of the box. Once the CPU is 100% busy with handling the TCP/IP protocol for the network connection to the PC, no further speedup is possible. On the 7170, some time ago I had measured about 2MB/s for TCP data transfers PC -> FBF (netcat on PC -> LAN -> netcat on FBF -> /dev/null, at 100% CPU utilization on the box), and I think a little bit more in the opposite direction, but I don't remember exactly. According to the reports above (I don't have a 7270), the 7270 seems to be faster now, AFAIK it also has a faster CPU, but I would not expect wonders either. One should certainly not base the expectations for the computing power of the box on the experience with the computing power of a PC.

 

[johnbock]

Holy Cow!!???

The problem seems to be the network interface(s). Can anyone confirm this?

Streaming through the network interface (in this case the cable-lan connector 2) with netcat into /dev/null. Obviously, streaming over wlan would be appropriately slower...

7270

./netcat -l -p 3333 >/dev/null

laptop 1.8GHz intel

john@new-york:~$ dd if=/dev/zero bs=$((1024*1024*100)) count=1 | nc fritzbox 3333
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 33.4003 seconds, 3.1 MB/s

As I have posted before
7270 HD interface reads

/var/media/ftp/uStor02 # hdparm -tT /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
Timing buffer-cache reads:    34 MB in 0.53 seconds = 64479 kB/s
Timing buffered disk reads:   31 MB in 3.07 seconds = 10307 kB/s

7270 HD physical writes

/var/media/ftp/uStor02 # time dd if=/dev/zero of=test.file bs=$((1024*1024*100)) count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
real    0m 6.82s
user    0m 0.00s
sys     0m 3.31s
/var/media/ftp/uStor02 # ls -l test.file 
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root    104857600 Apr 18 22:42 test.file
/var/media/ftp/uStor02 #

104857600B / 6.82s = 15375014.6B/s ~= 14MB/s


Now putting network interface and usb HD together

/var/mod/root # /tmp/netcat -l -p 3333 >/var/media/ftp/uStor02/test.file

john@new-york:~$ dd if=/dev/zero bs=$((1024*1024*100)) count=1 | nc fritzbox 3333
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 53.6728 seconds, 2.0 MB/s

Anyone know what's between theses two: network interface and usb interface?

 

[frank_m24]

Hallo,

Anyone know what's between theses two: network interface and usb interface?

PIO transfers? Did you have a look at the LOAD values of the box?

 

[johnbock]

Hallo,
PIO transfers? Did you have a look at the LOAD values of the box?

Mem: 55108K used, 3944K free, 0K shrd, 896K buff, 34988K cached
CPU:   7% usr  38% sys   0% nice   0% idle   0% io   0% irq  53% softirq
Load average: 1.30 0.49 0.41
  PID  PPID USER     STAT   VSZ %MEM %CPU COMMAND
 3579  3227 root     R      740   1%  90% /tmp/netcat -l -p 3333 
  565     6 root     SW<      0   0%   5% [capi_oslib]
  977     1 root     S     4028   7%   1% multid -u 
 1005     1 root     S <   8044  14%   1% voipd 
  843     1 root     S     3844   6%   1% usermand 
  992     1 root     S     5280   9%   1% dsld -i -n -g 
   75     6 root     SW<      0   0%   1% [CPMAC]
 3611  3581 root     R     1452   2%   1% top 
  678     1 root     R N  10328  17%   0% /usr/bin/avm/ctlmgr 
  781   775 root     S N  10328  17%   0% /usr/bin/avm/ctlmgr

look like the box spends a lot of time in the interrupt handler...

 

[bitjunkie]

Hello Johnbock,

interesting results you've taken maybe this are also interesting for AVM itself? So they can release a fix next time I'm not a samba geek but I believe that we can't get better results with some compiling parameter changes, so it's AVM turn!

Thank you.

Bitjunkie

 

[johnbock]

So they can release a fix next time

Looking at the above results, I'm not sure if it's really something that can be fixed with software. I just know to little about the topology to take an educated guess.

 

[bitjunkie]

Looking at the above results, I'm not sure if it's really something that can be fixed with software.

I hope it can! Should it really be that AVM couldn't fix this than I don't really understand why they habe put a USB 2.0 port into the box. Some people, like me, have bought the new one especially for this USB 2.0 port!

- N-draft modul is also not so good as I heard
- Fritz!Mini in combination with FB7270 is

Hm, for normal "users" it seems to be okay, but for us...

Bitjunkie

 

[frank_m24]

Hello,

yeah, it seems, the CPU is involved in case network traffic has to be handled by the Box itself.

Routing traffic e.g. from WLAN to LAN causes no processor load on the 7270 (I tested this using iperf on my notebook and my desktop). But transferring data from the network interfaces into the box (/dev/null or USB) causes this heavy load. BTW: on a 7170 WLAN<->LAN traffic itself causes a high processor load.

I'm not sure, if it is possible to connect network devices and the USB e.g. through DMA. We have to take into account, that the 7270 is a router, not a NAS. And even many NAS Devices are not faster than the 7270. At least in my opinion 3 MB/s is not that bad.

 

[johnbock]

The usb 2.0 interface works with respectable speed to the 7270 core. The problem seems to transfer speed from usb to the switch.

The transfer rate of about 2MB/s is fast enough for streaming music and the like. Large transfers take a bit. Personally, I wanted to record tv shows to the 7270 using nfs/cifs, but I don't think that's gonna work reliably in the current state. schade...

 

[WLAN-VoIP-Fan]

Hi,

The usb 2.0 interface works with respectable speed to the 7270 core. The problem seems to transfer speed from usb to the switch. ...

is this a HardWare-Problem or a AVM-Linux-FirmWare-Problem?

/var/mod/root # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
 
/dev/sda:
Timing buffer-cache reads:    34 MB in 0.52 seconds = 66953 kB/s
Timing buffered disk reads:   33 MB in 3.03 seconds = 11152 kB/s

Does I need a hdparm-Binary für AVM-FritzBox-MIPS-CPU for this Test or is this in the AVM or Freetz Firmware include?

By.

By.

 

[johnbock]

Does I need a hdparm-Binary für AVM-FritzBox-MIPS-CPU for this Test or is this in the AVM or Freetz Firmware include?

Don't know... I didn't have the original firmware all too long. I switched over to freetz pretty quickly

 

[WLAN-VoIP-Fan]

Hi,

Don't know... I didn't have the original firmware all too long. I switched over to freetz pretty quickly

have you build you your Freetz or havbe you get a Komplete Image?

By.

 

[johnbock]

have you build you your Freetz or havbe you get a Komplete Image?

I'm not sure I understand... AFAIK you always have build freetz yourself. Take a look here.

 

[Darkyputz]

wollt auch mal meinen mist dazu geben!!

hdparm -Tt /dev/sda2
/dev/sda2:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 34 MB in 0.51 seconds = 68266 kB/s
Timing buffered disk reads: 18 MB in 3.07 seconds = 6003 kB/s

hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 34 MB in 0.51 seconds = 68266 kB/s
Timing buffered disk reads: 20 MB in 3.12 seconds = 6564 kB/s

8 gig usb 1 zoll festplatte ext2 format

 

[henfri]

Moin,

besteht hier noch eine Aussicht auf Verbesserung?

Gruß,

Hendrik

 

[Darkyputz]

iss doch nen guter wert...was hast du??
was bräuchtest du denn??
welche vorstellung hast du was andere NAS so schaffen??

 

[henfri]

Hallo,

na wenn die FritzBox mit 10-12 MB/s von der FB lesen kann, dann möchte ich diese 10 MB/s bitte auch am Client haben. Wie die Tests hier gezeigt haben gibt's hier einen Flaschenhals.

Schaffen andere 'Consumer' NAS wirklich auch nur 2-2.5 MB/s??

Gruß,
Hendrik

 

[Darkyputz]

2-2.5 (Einheit lasse ich lieber weg...gibt zu viel Mecker) iss ja noch steigerbar.
Ich bin mit 4-5 dabei...per ftpfs(gemountet im Exlorer als Laufwerk wie Samba)
und 3-4 mit Samba im Explorer...das finde ich schon recht ordentlich.
Dazu sei gesagt das ich Ext2 und eine Festplatte nutze und auch eine angepasste Sambaconfig nutze...
Details reiche ich gern nach.

 

[Verpeiler]

Schaffen andere 'Consumer' NAS wirklich auch nur 2-2.5 MB/s??

Die FBox ist kein NAS, sondern ein Router mit Telefoniefunktionen, DSL-Modem etc., welche unter anderem eine NAS Funktion über den USB-Host zur Verfügung stellt. Bei einem richtigen NAS ist die Festplatte zudem auch nicht über USB, sondern IDE bzw. aktuelle über S-ATA (streckenweise sogar im RAID) angebunden.

Ein richtiges NAS fängt in der Regel bei 200¤ ohne Platte an und bietet je nach Modell natürlich eine deutlich höherer Übertragungsrate.

Hier mal ein Link zu einer Bandbreiten Grafik:

http://www.netzwelt.de/gallery/naslaufwerke-im-test/benchmarks.jpg.html

 

[henfri]

Hallo,

ich weiß, was die Fritzbox ist.

Ob die Platte per USB, IDE, SATA, ESATA, SCSI oder sonstwas angeschlossen ist, ist ohne Belang, solange dies nicht der Flaschenhals ist. Und das wurde ja hier schon gezeigt.

Der Flaschenhals ist scheinbar auch nicht das Netzwerk-Interface, sondern das Übergeben von USB auf Netzwerk.

Es ist keineswegs 'natürlich' dass die FB nur diese geringe Datenrate schafft.

@Darkyputz: Deine Konfig würde mich interessieren.

Per NFS schaffe ich max 3MB/s. FTP und Samba müsste ich mal testen.

Gruß,
Hendrik