Like every other website on the planet, SmallNetBuilder uses cookies. Our cookies track login status, but we only allow admins to log in anyway, so those don't apply to you. Any other cookies you pick up during your visit come from advertisers, which we don't control.
If you continue to use the site, you agree to tolerate our use of cookies. Thank you!

Router Charts

Click for Router Charts

Router Ranker

Click for Router Ranker

NAS Charts

Click for NAS Charts

NAS Ranker

Click for NAS Ranker

More Tools

Click for More Tools

NAS How To

Testing - Vista File Copy

Figure 1 shows a Process Monitor trace of an XP SP2 drag-and-drop filecopy read of a test folder containing a single non-compressed ripped DVD. The 4.35 GB (4,680,843,264 bytes) folder contains 38 files of various sizes ranging from 1 GB to 10 KB.

XP SP2 file copy read Process Monitor trace
Click to enlarge image

Figure 1: XP SP2 file copy read Process Monitor trace

Figure 1 shows the end of one file read and the start of another. You can see that the length of most transfers is 61,440 Bytes (60 KB) instead of 64 KB, which Russinovich's post explains is due to an SMB1.0 protocol limit on individual read sizes.

Figure 2 shows a read transfer of the same folder, but using Vista SP1. Big difference, eh? Instead of wimpy little 60 KB reads, Vista SP1 has bulked up to reading 1 MB blocks—a 17X increase!

Vista SP1 file copy read Process Monitor trace
Click to enlarge image

Figure 2: Vista SP1 file copy read Process Monitor trace

So now let's see if the larger block sizes make any difference in file copy speed. Figure 3 shows a Vista Performance Monitor plot of Disk Bytes/sec of the RAID 0 array on the NAS Testbed machine while running a write drag-and-drop filecopy to the Test NAS. The average speed reported is 105,125,011 Bytes/sec or 100.2 MB/s

Test NAS Write Vista Performance Monitor plot - Test Bed 3 drive RAID 0
Click to enlarge image

Figure 3: Test NAS Write Vista Performance Monitor plot - Test Bed 2 drive RAID 0

Figure 4 shows the read results for the same test conditions, which measured 112,754,606 Bytes/sec or 107.5 MB/s.

Test NAS Read Vista Performance Monitor plot - Test Bed 3 drive RAID 0
Click to enlarge image

Figure 4: Test NAS Read Vista Performance Monitor plot - Test Bed 2 drive RAID 0

I also ran the tests with a single non-RAID drive and a three-drive RAID 0 array on the NAS Test Bed machine, to see if I really needed to run a RAID array and whether three drives would provide higher test capability than two drives. The results are summarized in Table 3, which contains links to bring up the related Performance Monitor plots.

Test Bed Volume Average Write (MB/s) Average Read (MB/s)
Single Drive 103.8 [plot] 92.2 [plot]
RAID 0 - 2 drive 100.2 [plot] 107.5 [plot]
RAID 0 - 3 drive 101.2 [plot] 105.2 [plot]
Table 3: Vista SP1 File Copy performance summary

I apologize for the different plot scales and separate plots, which make it hard to compare the plots. This was my first attempt at using the Vista Performance Monitor and I hadn't quite gotten the hang of it.

I also was confused by some Googling that I did when I couldn't figure out how to create a Data Collector Set of the captured data so that I could create a composite plot of the test runs with Excel. The references said that you had to have Vista Business or Ultimate in order to create a Data Collector set and I had only Home Premium. But while writing this article, I found that I can create data collector sets in Vista Home Premium, which is what I'll do next time.

Anyway, my take-away from the testing is that it didn't look like RAID 0 helped for the write test, but it did for the read. But there is no significant difference between two-drive and three-drive RAID 0 arrays, so I have settled on a two-drive RAID 0 array for the NAS Test Bed.

More NAS

Wi-Fi System Tools
Check out our Wi-Fi System Charts, Ranker and Finder!

Support Us!

If you like what we do and want to thank us, just buy something on Amazon. We'll get a small commission on anything you buy. Thanks!

Over In The Forums

The ZenWifi XT8 is the newest kid on the block, while the RT-AX86U has the heritage of the ASUS workhorses; AC68U and AC86U. Which would be the better...
HiI have first tried getting support from Asus, but that is like getting blood out of a stone!My new Asus router just will not connect to a web browse...
I am now on my third replacement AC5300 router and about to give up on ASUS completely. I used to have a Netgear Nighthawk AC2300 with a matching exte...
Asuswrt-Merlin 384.19 is now available for all supported models, except for the RT-AX56U (no up-to-date GPL available for that model).The main changes...
This thread is for the discussion topic : unbound_manager script. As per the GitHub Hints/Tips: Differences between the operational modes​ E...

Don't Miss These

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3