Windows 7 - slow network (ethernet) transfers to network disk

[cranleighboy]

Computer/network/software
Dell Latitude D630 4GB RAM 149GB hard disk (40GB free)

Windows 7 Professional 6.1.7601 SP1 build 7001
Paragon Backup & Recovery 16 vsn 10.2.1
Win 7 machine backing up to WD My Book World 928GB (620GB free) network disk
Network: 100MB via Netgear DS108 100M hub (links Windows 7 computer; 2*Windows XP computer; WD My Book World; WD MyCloud 3.57TB (1.26TB free); HP printer; Router)

Problem.
Backup of C: disk to My Book World (ie large file) transfer is very slow

eg. Backup of C: to FreeAgent GoFlex drive on USB 2 connection takes 36 minutes
Backup of C to My Book World on Ethernet has never completed, estimated completion time circa 18 hours

This problem would not seem to be a function of the network or the disk as a Windows XP machine backs up in a reasonable time (44GB in 2hr 43 mins as an example) on the same network.

Scanning the internet suggests that the problem is widespread, but suggested solutions seem to have a very limited (in terms of results for users) effect. One feels that there is a solution waiting to be found!!


Any ideas welcome, please ask for any additional information.

 

[Digerati]

Having a 100Mbps "hub" is not helping. I would definitely upgrade that to a 1Gbps (1000Mbps) "switch".

Has the WD been defragged lately?

 

[cranleighboy]

Having a 100Mbps "hub" is not helping. I would definitely upgrade that to a 1Gbps (1000Mbps) "switch".

Has the WD been defragged lately?

It is unclear to me what either of these suggestions would achieve.
a) the XP machine, when backing up runs, the network at full bore (evidenced by lights on hub showing maximum use)
b) the Windows 7 machine on the other hand just shows an occasional burp. Both machines are attached to ports on the same hub. Changing ports mankes no difference.

In other words, it is not the network that is holding the windows 7 backup up (or indeed the disk), which only leaves windows 7 itself. This is further evidenced by significant sidcussion of the same problem on the internet. Finding a working solution, however, is another matter!

In addition how does one defrag a network disk. It has its own operating system (probably a form of linux) and is therefor not visible to defrag software on other computers (for good reason, other computers could be using it). The only way to defrag a network disk so far as I am aware is though its own operating system. The operating system on the WD My Cloud does not appear to offer a defrag option. There are also reports that one does not defrag such disks anyway!!

So solutions at the Windows 7 end would be welcome!

Many thanks

 

[Digerati]

I was not suggesting moving from a 10/100Mbps hub to a 10/100/1000Mbps switch would cure all your problems, just that your hub is not helping. Switches are intelligent devices that support full duplex mode and are almost immune to collision issues. Hubs are passive (not intelligent) devices, work in half duplex and are subject collisions.

Check this out: How to Fix WD My Cloud Low Speed Problems Make it Fast

Did you swap Ethernet cables? These are extremely critical but low-tech and fragile devices that can greatly affect network performance - and are often overlooked. They can only survive being yanked on and tripped over so many time - often not even once. And sadly, many come poorly made right from the factory. I always make my own for that reason.

Does this W7 computer work fine otherwise over the network? Since the backup to the Seagate USB device moves along quickly not sure this is a W7 issues. Can you test just copying (not using your backup program) a large file (or a bunch of files) to a different network device (the XP system or may the cloud/Internet storage) and see how those times compare with backing up to the MyCloud device?

Sorry, I forgot that MyCloud devices use an embedded Linux OS and thus uses a different file system that does not typically need defragging.

 

[cranleighboy]

I was not suggesting moving from a 10/100Mbps hub to a 10/100/1000Mbps switch would cure all your problems, just that your hub is not helping. Switches are intelligent devices that support full duplex mode and are almost immune to collision issues. Hubs are passive (not intelligent) devices, work in half duplex and are subject collisions.

Check this out: How to Fix WD My Cloud Low Speed Problems Make it Fast

Did you swap Ethernet cables? These are extremely critical but low-tech and fragile devices that can greatly affect network performance - and are often overlooked. They can only survive being yanked on and tripped over so many time - often not even once. And sadly, many come poorly made right from the factory. I always make my own for that reason.

Does this W7 computer work fine otherwise over the network? Since the backup to the Seagate USB device moves along quickly not sure this is a W7 issues. Can you test just copying (not using your backup program) a large file (or a bunch of files) to a different network device (the XP system or may the cloud/Internet storage) and see how those times compare with backing up to the MyCloud device?

Sorry, I forgot that MyCloud devices use an embedded Linux OS and thus uses a different file system that does not typically need defragging.

Many thanks

Yes I have swapped both cables and ports.

I have done some speed tests (attached) and on the basis of your recommendation and some of these figures have ordered a 1GB switch

However, these figures have raised more questions in my mind!!

1. I tried sending a file from the W7 machine to the WD disk; and then the reverse, on each time having deleted the file from the receiving end to give comparable figures. As the send is so slow I used a smaller file here. I then repeated the experiment from the XP machine. This is much older, and almost certainly the C:\ disk and the processor are much slower. On each test the network was not in use by any other program apart from the occasional packets sent out by various software. Results attached.

2. Why is there a factor of circa 20 when a file is moved from the disk to the W7 computer over moving it from the computer to the disk?

3. Directly connecting the disk produced an increase speed ratio of around 60 on sending, 20 on receiving. This potentially showed that the hub was a delaying factor....... Except that...

4. The XP to disk send was about 27 times faster than the W7 test. That is ridiculous bearing in mind that the two computers are attached to the same hub. This starts giving me doubts as to whether the hub is the cause of the slow speed shown by the W7 machine

5. The direct connection speeds on XP were comparable to the transfers via the hub (the variation may well be due to the high speeds attained with the XP machine whether via the hub or direct)

6. The direct connection speeds attained by the XP machine were slower than those on the W7 machine (43% on send; 11% on receive) which is what one would expect from an older machine, which again emphasises the fact that the XP machine was a much better performer than the W7 machine when sending via the hub. This suggests that there is some incompatibility between W7 and hubs which is not occurring with XP

6. It seems very anomalous that an older machine, both in hardware & software, can totally outperform the newer machine, particularly in transferring data from the computer to disk. The figures above seem to remove both the disk and the network from causing the problem

I will retest when the switch arrives at the weekend, but any thoughts in the mean time are welcome!

Regards Chris

 

[Digerati]

2. Why is there a factor of circa 20 when a file is moved from the disk to the W7 computer over moving it from the computer to the disk?

My "guess" here is the computer is able to spool much of the data more quickly into RAM. Also, the disk in the computer may have a significantly larger buffer.

How much RAM is in the notebook? Is that 64-bit Windows? Does the W7 system have integrated graphics, or a card?

 

[cranleighboy]

Notebook RAM 4GB with 2.02GB available (XP is 2GB/1.21GB)

Windows 7 is 32bit, and has an intergrated graphics card with its own 128MB memory (ditto on the XP machine)

Regards Chris

 

[Digerati]

I wish I knew the answer there. I have found many solutions to this problem which in itself is odd. If there was a set problem, there should be a set solution, not many.

32-bit Windows automatically reduces the available ram to around 3.2 to 3.4GB. While your integrate may have its own memory, some system memory is still stolen... err... shared for graphics. I guess at this point we can wait and see if the switch helps.

 

[satrow]

Notebook RAM 4GB with 2.02GB available (XP is 2GB/1.21GB)

Windows 7 is 32bit, and has an integrated graphics card with its own 128MB memory (ditto on the XP machine)

This reads like the available figures are taken from TaskMan, rather than from the System screen (Windows key + Pause/Break), ie. the current memory rather than the base installed/usable memory.

From Resource Manager's Memory tab, what's the figure for Hardware reserved on the W7 notebook?

 

[cranleighboy]

Notebook RAM 4GB with 2.02GB available (XP is 2GB/1.21GB)

Windows 7 is 32bit, and has an integrated graphics card with its own 128MB memory (ditto on the XP machine)

This reads like the available figures are taken from TaskMan, rather than from the System screen (Windows key + Pause/Break), ie. the current memory rather than the base installed/usable memory.

From Resource Manager's Memory tab, what's the figure for Hardware reserved on the W7 notebook?

515MB

 

[cranleighboy]

I wish I knew the answer there. I have found many solutions to this problem which in itself is odd. If there was a set problem, there should be a set solution, not many.

32-bit Windows automatically reduces the available ram to around 3.2 to 3.4GB. While your integrate may have its own memory, some system memory is still stolen... err... shared for graphics. I guess at this point we can wait and see if the switch helps.

Switch arrived faster that expected -- I think Amazon put the go-faster stripe Prime on it!!

I attach an enhanced set of results with the figures for the switch on a light green background.

Interesting points:

1. W7 to disk has increased greatly, disk to W7 a much smaller amount (but then it was already fast!)

2. W7 to disk is almost as fast as direct connection but disk to W7 is much slower

3. WP figures have only speeded up slightly, but I am not surprised at that

4. W7 is still faster from disk to to disk, but by a significantly smaller ratio

5. At last W7 is faster than XP -- I suspect that XP has a better algorithm for handling network transfers. Strange, but then that is Microsoft after all!!

Now to see how long a backup will take!!

Many thanks Chris

 

[Digerati]

I suspect that XP has a better algorithm for handling network transfers. Strange, but then that is Microsoft after all!!

That would be strange but pretty sure that is not the case.

515MB is a pretty big chunk. Again, being 32-bit, you lose a lot of useable RAM due to the way 32-bit Windows maps hardware to memory. But it would seem your system is snagging more than that 128MB of dedicated RAM for graphics. Not sure if that can be changed, however. It depends on your particular BIOS Menu options. Have you made any changes from the defaults in the BIOS? Is Windows managing your page file?

 

[cranleighboy]

I suspect that XP has a better algorithm for handling network transfers. Strange, but then that is Microsoft after all!!

That would be strange but pretty sure that is not the case.

515MB is a pretty big chunk. Again, being 32-bit, you lose a lot of useable RAM due to the way 32-bit Windows maps hardware to memory. But it would seem your system is snagging more than that 128MB of dedicated RAM for graphics. Not sure if that can be changed, however. It depends on your particular BIOS Menu options. Have you made any changes from the defaults in the BIOS? Is Windows managing your page file?

No known changes to BIOS
Windows is managing page file (so far as I am aware!!)

Thanks

 

[Digerati]

Windows is managing page file (so far as I am aware!!)

That's good - as long as you have lots of free disk space (and you do). Hopefully satrow has some ideas here.

 

[satrow]

I've not done any networking for quite some time, all devices here are blocked from sharing, Services/protocols disabled etc. so I can't even test/check the basics; I'll be of little help.

I suspect the WD MyBookWorld to be part of the problem, esp. if it's the slower 'blue rings' version:

Network speed

Although MyBook Ethernet-capable disks come with a Gigabit Ethernet interface, the network speed is significantly slower. Especially for older "blue rings" models (200 MHz ARM CPU and 32 MByte RAM), where it varies between 3–6 MByte/s, with an average of 4.5 MByte/s.[5] The newer "white lights" MyBook World Edition 1 TB and 2 TB storage capacity models, WDH1NC and WDH2NC (oxnas810,[6] 380 MHz ARM CPU and 128 MByte RAM), have drive speeds comparable to USB, at about 10 MB/s write and 25 MB/s read.[7]

The "white lights" WDH1NC is Jumbo Frames capable and can achieve ~36 MByte/s reading and ~18 MByte/s writing speed over Gigabit Ethernet.

 

[Tekno Venus]

If you have the white light version, have you updated the firmware to the latest version? How to check or update the firmware on a WD My Book World Edition I and II (White Light) drives | WD Support

I suspect that XP has a better algorithm for handling network transfers. Strange, but then that is Microsoft after all!!

How do you connect to the drives? Are they mapped network drives in Windows?

If they're mapped network drives, I am assuming they are connecting over the SMB protocol. XP only supports the old SMBv1 protocol, which is horribly, horribly insecure. Newer versions can make use of SMBv2 and newer, which are much, much faster and more secure.

Out of interest, can you open a Powershell prompt on both machines as admin and run the following command: Get-SmbConnection

You should see something like this:

ServerName  ShareName UserName                Credential               Dialect NumOpens
----------  --------- --------                ----------               ------- --------
192.168.1.2 c$        STEPHEN-DESKTOP\Stephen teknovenus\sfoulds.admin 3.1.1   4

Here you can see this share on my Windows Server 2016 domain controller is communicating with SMBv3.1.1.

Edit - In your original post, you said you also have a WD MyCloud? What's the performance of that like?