I've tried to see if there were any difference between hardware of my NAS and the Flip's one. I've seen that Flip got a thermal cooler on his NAS CPU. There is nothing on mine (see attached pictures). I will try to see if the unit CPU is really hot during transfer. That could explain, for a same firmware, the hugh performance
difference that we've got. philipp Wehrheim a écrit :
Hi, not really guess it would be really usefull to start all daemons that support it by the inetd Julius Loman schrieb:On Thursday 17 May 2007 16:28, Tom Haukap wrote:Triggerd by the recent discussion about ftp performance I check by box and found out that the SMB transfer rate are only half of the once from ftp. I get nearly 7 MB/s from FTP but only around 3.5 MB/s using SMB.you are lucky having such values!! i'm getting 1.4MB/s with SMB and 2.8 with CIFSi've also done some testing and compiled another smbd in gentoo chroot on NAS with same performance results! so now I think the performance will not be much better via smb/cifs protocol on this NAS hardware.at least this cpu has ~70 bogomips compared to ~4000 with my 2.0GHz Pentium-Mwhen downloading from NAS, arm cpu in NAS is very busy for smbd (95% or more) and when downloading from my laptop to another computer it is around 2% (at laptop).so now i guess the performance of SMB is limited with NAS hardware.has anyone got better results than yours 3.5MB/s ?