File transfer speed - can't identify the bottleneck

  • I am currently using a following setup:
    WD purple 4TB in an Icy Box IB-3620U3 connected to Rpi4 via USB3
    TL-WR841N router connected through Ethernet to Rpi4 and my main PC and with WIFI with other network devices


    PC: asuz z87-a motherboard (supposedly supports gigabit connection) with i5 4670k and WD blue HDDs



    WD drive conencted to Rpi4 has has its contents shared to the other devices through sambashare. NTFS filesystem.



    The issue is that the file transfer speed is around 10 MB/s. Considering that the router supports up to 300 Mb/s (both sides) then max transfer over wifi can be no higher than 18 MB/s - is that correct?



    However, I expected the file transfer to be done via ethernet, which should yield higher speeds, no? Is my router the bottleneck here?

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    The first thing that stands out to me, as a potential problem, is NTFS. That can be very bad. Perhaps especially with a RPi4, according to other posts on this forum.


    The second thing is that you seem to have ethernet traffic going via two different routers? That seems strange. And can be very bad. The LAN ethernet traffic should preferably not go via any router. Instead it should go via a separate GbE switch. Only traffic out/in should go via a router.


    It is even possible that your router doesn't support GbE, only 100 Mbps. Then 10 MB/s is the best you can expect! Check the specs.

  • Nah, there is only one router, it just had its name displayed this way (with a slash) which might have been confusing. I edited the main post.


    Can you elaborate about the problems with Rpi4 and NTFS please? I know about potential performance degradation and that the transfer might be 10% slower on average but this doesn't sound too harsh tbh.


    In any way, remaking the HDD to ext4 isn't that difficult but I'm not sure if there's a point in doing so

    The second thing is that you seem to have ethernet traffic going via two different routers? That seems strange. And can be very bad. The LAN ethernet traffic should preferably not go via any router. Instead it should go via a separate GbE switch. Only traffic out/in should go via a router.

    I'm not sure. The packets go to cable modem first, from there they go to the router which is connected via ethernet with the main PC and Rpi4. If I understand correctly, I don't have a separate GbE switch (the router acts as both switch and AP? IDK, I'm not really knowledgeable when it comes to networking)

  • an PI with NTFS Filesystems is same like a AVM Fritzbox with NTFS Drive for Nas... slooooooooooow! Dont use NTFS outside a Windows Environment.

    Equipment: a few Computers, lot's of waste heat, little time and a Pile of work.


    When solving problems, dig at the root instead of hacking at the leaves.

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    Check the specifications for the router. It is not uncommon for routers to only support 100Mbps speeds. If that is the case you have found the bottleneck. And to avoid it you will have to buy a GbE switch or replace the router with one that has a built in GbE switch.


    I just looked up your router. Yepp! Only 100 Mbps. So the most you can hope for is 10 MB/s. The router is the bottleneck. The router is perfectly fine as long as you use it as a router and not as a LAN switch.


    About NTFS. I think the driver for NTFS is very ineffecient. And it seems that it is extra slow on low-end hardware. Possibly extra in combination with SMB/CIFS and USB and ARM. In other words with a RPi.


    But this is just what I have gathered from other posts here. I don't use NTFS. I do use RPi4s with satisfactory performance.

  • Well, switching to ext4 is easy but finding a way to move files between windows 10 and ext4 is a goddamn hell... I have already spent hours dealing with creating sambashares on ubuntu and I begin to hate linux and its design focused on interrupting every possible user decision

  • The challenge is to ride the horse, not that the horse rides you.
    Setup a virtualhost on windows and use it for Linux. Or use ext3 drivers on windows.. or NFS.
    lots of ways do it.

    I begin to hate linux and its design focused on interrupting every possible user decision

    this one is nice :))

    Equipment: a few Computers, lot's of waste heat, little time and a Pile of work.


    When solving problems, dig at the root instead of hacking at the leaves.

  • Why not use a NAS?


    Then you can connect any type of computer to the NAS, via the network, and share files between different computers via shares on the NAS. Very elegant and easy.

    I intend my 4tb drive to be a part of the NAS. In fact, I even had everything set up, but as you can see in my earlier posts, I decided to switch to ext4. I need to move large quantity of data from my old drives to my NAS and the router is a heavy bottleneck, how much time would moving at least 1TB of data with 10MB/s speed take? While speed this low is still fine for moving small files as they appear or to stream some videos, I still need a way to access the file system directly.


    I'll probably create some boot usb with ubuntu and transfer files from there I guess.


    Edit: yeah, switched to EXT4 but the speed remains the same. Gotta get a new router soon.

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    Well, switching to ext4 is easy but finding a way to move files between windows 10 and ext4 is a goddamn hell..

    Why not boot a linux life distro on the windows computer (which will be a linux comuter at that time) and connect the ext4 drive. Transfer the files.


    EDIT: just saw that you already arrived to the same idea


    I'll probably create some boot usb with ubuntu and transfer files from there I guess.

Jetzt mitmachen!

Sie haben noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registrieren Sie sich kostenlos und nehmen Sie an unserer Community teil!