ASUS-AX6000 slow NAS speed

[Liam96]

Hey, so I'm currently making use of the USB port on my Asus TUF AX6000 router which I believe is USB 3.2 Gen 1 which supports 5 Gbps transfer speeds. I have a Samsung T7 portable SSD connected which is USB 3.2 Gen 2 with transfer speeds of up to 1000 MB/s.
I've currently mapped the network drive, I'm using Samba share, and the SSD is formatted in NTFS. When transferring files across from my PC that's connected to the router over a CAT6 connection into the 2.5GB port, I'm only seeing an average of 10 MB/s transfer speeds.
If I unmount and remount the SSD in will sometimes go up to a max of around 30 MB/s. Any idea what is going on here? I would have assumed the speeds would be faster than this unless I'm missing or not understanding something, any help appreciated! Firmware version: 3.0.0.4.388_32432-ga4b5297
The status image is with the transfer in progress.

 

[Tech9]

I believe is USB 3.2 Gen 1 which supports 5 Gbps transfer speeds. I have a Samsung T7 portable SSD connected which is USB 3.2 Gen 2 with transfer speeds of up to 1000 MB/s.

This router can do about 100MB/sec limited by the CPU. This USB share on the router is not a NAS.

 

[Liam96]

This router can do about 100MB/sec limited by the CPU. This USB share on the router is not a NAS.

Ah right thanks, I thought that it was. If the router can do 100MB/sec, do you have any idea why it's only going as fast as 10MB/sec? Cheers

 

[Tech9]

No idea. I used to test this some time ago, got about 100MB/sec in ideal conditions, got crashes with large multiple files transfers. Not reliable and may corrupt the data. If your data is something valuable better get a real NAS and leave the router alone. You'll get better both reliability and transfer up/down speeds.

 

[Ripshod]

These router's rely on a cache to help speed up file transfers, but when there's no space for a large cache things seem to go to pot. Right now for me 63MB/s download / 108MB/s upload with cache at 329MB.

 

[Liam96]

No idea. I used to test this some time ago, got about 100MB/sec in ideal conditions, got crashes with large multiple files transfers. Not reliable and may corrupt the data. If your data is something valuable better get a real NAS and leave the router alone. You'll get better both reliability and transfer up/down speeds.

Yeah it's a strange one that I can't figure out for the life of me. I tried it with a USB 3 flash drive and the speeds were the same. It's being transferred from my desktops PCIe 4.0 NVMe drive. Anytime I transfer the file I notice my RAM usage on the router is crazy high, I think it idles around 40% if I remember right, and goes up to 95% when transferring. If I remount the drive it goes to 30MB/sec which I can live with but it's not consistent.

What I'm trying to do is transfer movies from my desktop to networked storage which I can then access through my Smart TV. Once they're on the drive it's fine and works as expected, but the transfer speed is painfully slow. The NAS I've had a look at are quite large and expensive 100s $/£'s. Looking for something a bit cheaper and more compact that would get the job done, what would you recommend?

 

[Liam96]

These router's rely on a cache to help speed up file transfers, but when there's no space for a large cache things seem to go to pot. Right now for me 63MB/s download / 108MB/s upload with cache at 329MB.

Thanks, how would I check my cache? Is that your broadband speed or your transfer speed you listed there? Does the size of the file affect at what speed it transfers at?

 

[Ripshod]

Thanks, how would I check my cache? Is that your broadband speed or your transfer speed you listed there? Does the size of the file affect at what speed it transfers at?

If the cache is small the larger files will struggle to reach high speeds.
I've just retested with a 6.6GB video file and reached 86MB/s download and 38MB/s on Upload with the SSD in my signature, so different hardware different results.
If you have asuswrt-merlin you can just login to ssh and enter

free

Edit: There was a backup running on my laptop which slowed the upload. Back up to 103MB/s

 

[Tech9]

Asus TUF-AX6000 router is MediaTek hardware with 512MB RAM. The more popular GT-AX6000 is Broadcom hardware with 1GB RAM. Differences is USB performance are expected due to CPU cores performance and available RAM. I was actually talking about Asus Broadcom hardware router with 1GB RAM. I don't know the limits of TUF-AX6000 and apologize for the incorrect numbers above. Perhaps @Liam96 gets what it can do in real life despite the marketing claims and specs on paper.

 

[Tech9]

Looking for something a bit cheaper and more compact that would get the job done, what would you recommend?

For non-critical and replaceable data you can get 1-bay NAS like Sinology DS120j for about $150 plus the cost of the HDD inside. It's small and power efficient.

 

[Liam96]

For non-critical and replaceable data you can get 1-bay NAS like Sinology DS120j for about $150 plus the cost of the HDD inside. It's small and power efficient.

Nice, would that just connect to my router via ethernet + its own power supply? Would it take an NVMe drive and what sort of speeds would I roughly expect transferring from a desktop PC to that? I also seen this NAS enclosure on eBay which looks very compact would this also work and would there be much difference between them in terms of speed and how they operate? Thanks

 

[Tech9]

Get something with a more recognizable brand name. It will have better software support. NAS boxes have own power supply and connect via Ethernet to your network. The cheaper Synology box in the example above has Gigabit Ethernet port and you can get about 100-120MB/sec transfer to another Ethernet connected client.

 

[Liam96]

Get something with a more recognizable brand name. It will have better software support. NAS boxes have own power supply and connect via Ethernet to your network. The cheaper Synology box in the example above has Gigabit Ethernet port and you can get about 100-120MB/sec transfer to another Ethernet connected client.

Will do thanks, 100-120 sounds a lot better than the 10 I'm currently getting and I'd be more than happy with that. Any idea if there's something similar in size that's more reputable than the one I mentioned? I'm a bit limited in space where the router is situated. Router is downstairs and there's very little space and I can only assume my partner would not be happy with another unit hanging around there lol. I also don't fancy having it in my office upstairs and running another ethernet cable up. Thanks

 

[L&LD]

Those speeds are 'up to'. And will almost certainly not hit 120MB/s in real life.

The speeds will depend on the drive used, the Ethernet chipset used, the file (and file size) actually being transferred, and the source/destination drive and client device too.

A single disk 'nas' isn't a NAS. Network-attached storage? Perhaps. But not a NAS.

I would recommend a QNAP or Synology NAS enclosure with as many drive bays as you can afford to buy today. Remember, you don't need to populate them all (right now).

 

[Tech9]

Any idea if there's something similar in size that's more reputable than the one I mentioned?

Smaller size enclosure than this 1-bay Synology NAS will be potentially creating overheating conditions for the HDD inside.

 

[Liam96]

Smaller size enclosure than this 1-bay Synology NAS will be potentially creating overheating conditions for the HDD inside.

Thanks, I've done research and had a look at reviews for the DS120J and they're saying the CPU is weak and showed it being unable to buffer a 480p video that was being streamed from it which is putting me off that particular NAS as that's going to be it's primary use case. Would I perhaps be better with something such as the WD My Cloud Home?

 

[L&LD]

WD MyCloud devices are notoriously failure-prone in my experience (not to mention having abysmal 'performance').

That's what I usually replace with a QNAP model instead.

 

[Liam96]

WD MyCloud devices are notoriously failure-prone in my experience (not to mention having abysmal 'performance').

That's what I usually replace with a QNAP model instead.

Ah, I'm just looking for something hopefully cheap and cheerful (and also compact?) That would fit my needs if such a NAS exists? Looking for at least 50MB/sec transfer speeds. I just fear I'm going down the NAS rabbit hole and don't want to end up with an expensive sizely unit that I won't end up making the most use out of. Just looking for something compact that can take one SSD drive which I'll use for watching movies on from my TV. Would you have any suggestions? Tia

 

[L&LD]

A QNAP or Synology NAS is worlds above what you are currently considering. With prices to match. The offset is that a proper NAS can/will last a decade or more, with only disks needing to be replaced (if necessary).

You can take your chances with the inexpensive options and you may come out ahead.

If the data you have has taken time/energy to acquire, I'd be spending what is needed, rather than the least expensive alternative (with enough of the latter, you'll have easily surpassed the recommended solution).

 

[Liam96]

A QNAP or Synology NAS is worlds above what you are currently considering. With prices to match. The offset is that a proper NAS can/will last a decade or more, with only disks needing to be replaced (if necessary).

You can take your chances with the inexpensive options and you may come out ahead.

If the data you have has taken time/energy to acquire, I'd be spending what is needed, rather than the least expensive alternative (with enough of the latter, you'll have easily surpassed the recommended solution).

Thanks for that, I'm only transferring movies. Once they're watched, they're deleted from the NAS, so no need for any kind of redundancy.

I've done some more digging and I'm wondering what your take would be on this particular NAS and if you think it would work for what I would use it for? Appreciate the help!