LAN performance issues often stem from speed limitations within your local network.
LAN performance issues often stem from speed limitations within your local network.
Hello Everyone,
In my home network I use a gigabit switch (TL-SG108E 3.0) connected to the wireless router via a Tp link Archer C20 LAN port. My Ubuntu server, NAS (ReadyNAS 214), and other devices are all plugged into the switch's Ethernet port, which has gigabit NICs. I thought any device on the switch would handle gigabit speeds, but when transferring files between my NAS and my Ubuntu desktop, the performance isn't as expected. I checked using RSYNC, and the transfer results are available here: /media/test/T1.
It seems unclear what you're trying to achieve. The ReadyCloud displays temperature and fan speed, but it doesn't show load details. You might need another tool or method to get that information.
ReadyNAS lacks a native CPU load monitor. It only provides metrics on temperature, data transfer, and disk usage. An app named iStat NT is available through the ReadyNAS interface repository. Installing it lets you track CPU load via an iOS app (around $8 AUD). After installation and testing, I can view detailed CPU usage information, helping identify potential bottlenecks. You should check utilization during workloads, such as file transfers to or from the NAS. The iStat NT README mentions a generated password at install time; you can connect via SSH to review configuration settings. If you're not comfortable with Linux commands, using the default password 12345 works for me.
Consider the NAS's CPU usage for ReadyNAS OS and other apps. Before moving files, review the performance chart. The 214 port matches your 314 setup. You have two gigabit ports and link aggregation is supported—activating it can boost speeds significantly. Learn more: https://kb.netgear.com/23076/What-are-bo...age-system
Almost correct. You need every device to provide 1 gigabit from the storage if you want gigabit speeds across your network. If not, the limitation lies elsewhere. Your drives might be too slow for some reason—possibly due to RAID or parity settings. One drive at a time? Also keep in mind each system handles its own read/write tasks on the drives.
The CPU utilization I observe on Gigabit with an i5 4690 server raises concerns about the processor performance, though I anticipate some AES support. ARM architecture isn’t strong for this kind of task, and rsync handles large amounts of data efficiently through incremental transfers. You didn’t specify the size of the files being moved; if they’re many small files (just a few GB total), speed will drop noticeably because of server and client delays with each transfer. Drive fragmentation can also slow things down. Also, the phrases “maximum simultaneous transfer” and “up to” suggest you’re talking about overall capacity during concurrent operations—not guaranteed results. It’s also worth noting that even with Gigabit connectivity, modern NAS units typically don’t match this level of raw throughput due to design priorities like cost and power efficiency. The type of workload matters greatly, and my personal experience shows rsync isn’t ideal if you need pure speed. I regularly back up from an SSD to my HDD, which is always slower than a standard NFS copy.