1000GB Network only getting 8.2mbps read/writes from WD hub?

[hazmat96]

Just saw this post and Ididn't look thru all of the replies, but if you haven't tried this consider checking it out ....

Wired LANs should do far better then the speeds you are seeing, but when there is even a slight wiring error (one open or shorted wire) they will "error correct" a lot and the speed goes way down.  Get a LAN wire tester at Home Depot or on-line and check your wiring out.

I had exactly the same issue until I bought a tester and fixed my wiring. My system (CAT6 wired with netgear burstmode switch) transfers a full movie (7.3 Gig) in 5 mins.  Who would want to wait any longer?

Enjoy,

Mike

[eddie_k_md]

I have what I would consider a "gigabit" ethernet network.

Router: Apple Airport Extreme (gigabit version)

I have a wired connection from router to PC and WD TV Live Hub and MAC BOOK Pro using CAT 5e cabling.

From PC <--> router <--> MAC BOOK Pro, I get around 32-45 MB/sec

From PC <--> router <--> WD TV live, I get around 7-9 MB/sec

From MAC BOOK Pro <--> router <--> WD TV live, I get around 7-9 MB/sec

Hence, limiting factor is WD TV live it is what it is and it's very disappointing especially since they advertise "gigabit ethernet"

[richUK]

---

eddie_k_md wrote:

I have what I would consider a "gigabit" ethernet network.

Router: Apple Airport Extreme (gigabit version)

I have a wired connection from router to PC and WD TV Live Hub and MAC BOOK Pro using CAT 5e cabling.

From PC <--> router <--> MAC BOOK Pro, I get around 32-45 MB/sec

From PC <--> router <--> WD TV live, I get around 7-9 MB/sec

From MAC BOOK Pro <--> router <--> WD TV live, I get around 7-9 MB/sec

Hence, limiting factor is WD TV live it is what it is and it's very disappointing especially since they advertise "gigabit ethernet"

---

I say again

http://community.wdc.com/t5/WD-TV-Live-Hub-Network/1000GB-Network-only-getting-8-2mbps-read-writes-f...

[Outsider]

QUOTE (RichUK)

If you read the review I attached to my message you will see that its a bit of a 'marketing ploy' on the hub. I did not mean in general. We are discussing the hub.

ENDQUOTE

I ,like many others ,made a decision to buy this item based on advertised hardware specs. My entire home network is gigabit. To make a machine that has a gigabit port and then not give it a processor that has enough power to be able to make full use it is just building to the lowest common parts price. In my opinion, one that might backfire. I am now very gunshy about buying ANYTHING by WD. I used to always buy WD hard drives but now I will think twice on my next purchase. I suspect that many other people will also think this way. This might be a marketing ploy by WD but it was wrong.

[chip_r]

I ,like many others ,made a decision to buy this item based on advertised hardware specs. My entire home network is gigabit. To make a machine that has a gigabit port and then not give it a processor that has enough power to be able to make full use it is just building to the lowest common parts price. In my opinion, one that might backfire. I am now very gunshy about buying ANYTHING by WD. I used to always buy WD hard drives but now I will think twice on my next purchase. I suspect that many other people will also think this way. This might be a marketing ploy by WD but it was wrong.

---

My question is, would you have purchased the hub if it was only 10/100 vs gigabit? The concern would have been "wow, gigabit has been around for years, why doesn't WD support it". 10/100 would have been more in line with it's true capabilities.

There as basic misunderstanding about the speed of Ethernet, SATA, USB, etc that many people don't appreciate. The signaling runs at these speeds and it supports the protocols of those speeds but the device USING the interface many times can't either fill or empty the pipe at those rated speeds. 

This is true of all networked devices. Check back in this post for the numbers on the PC<->MAC numbers, they don't' approach full gigabit capability. Why? Because even those devices can't fill the pipe! Yes, it's much better but PCs have multiple high speed internal interfaces and a processor and heat sink the size of your fist to boot. Don't forget about the dedicated northbridge/southbridge controllers, GPU chip, and etc that support the processor. These are different classes of machines than the little SoC-based hub. What do you expect for a box with a 1T notebook drive and a street price of ~170?

When products are designed, it's a tradeoff between performance and price. Would you have been willing to pay more for the hub for higher network performance? Sounds like it. But would everyone else want to pay more? Apparently WD said no.

Personally I find the performance to be fine as it's a copy once and done thing. It is painful up front but after an initial loading, you tend to forgot it. BTW, I wouldn't have paid more than ~200 for the box. At higher prices, one can kludge a HTPC together. I suspect WD had that in mind.

[TonyPh12345]

---

Outsider wrote:

 To make a machine that has a gigabit port and then not give it a processor that has enough power to be able to make full use it is just building to the lowest common parts price.

---

I doubt you have any device in your network that even gets close to gig speeds, let alone "full use" of it...  Except for, perhaps, your network switches.  

[Outsider]

Chip, when I decided to buy a media player, I did look at many diferent units and the GB interface was the item that made the final choice for me. It was only after I bought the unit that I discovered this site and read about the problems. In hindsite, would I have bought it? Probably not. I am now building an HTPC and am looking at XBMC (ver.11.0)

Tony, that is true. But, I also don't get the (1M/sec - 8M/sec)  transfer speed on anything else in my network. I very seldom use the internal hard drive as my home has a 12 TB NAS (actual usage 9TB due to raid5) setup that is accessed by more than the LiveHub.

[coylum]

This thread is somewhat confused by the misuse of abbreviations... as I understand it Mbps or Mb/s = megabits per second and MBps or MB/s = megabytes per second. There being an eight fold difference between the two.

I have run my WDTV Live Hub via wireless N and achieved erratic speeds between 1 and 3 MB/s. The network was fine but the performance of the WDTV with wireless was too erratic and slow. I have now cabled it direct and using a Netgear Gigabit router can achieve a steady transfer rate of 15MB/s (120Mbps)

Whilst 120 Mbps is well below the gigabit rate of 1 Gbps, (but above the 100 Mbps older network standard), it would appear this is the internal limit of the WDTV Live Hub, as mentioned by others in this thread. When running PC to PC on my Gigabit wired network I obtain speeds around 750 Mbps

Hard wiring my WDTV Live Hub has made it much more "friendly" in use as I transfer all my video from the computer prior to viewing. I just transferred 9GB in 10 minutes which is totally acceptable to me.

[George_R]

Everyone is talking about network speeds not being where they should be but one other factor that has not been mentioned is the Hard Drive. HD speed will also effectively limit your transfer rates. If the drive can't write the data, then it will not allow more to be received. I did a quick Google on it but could not find out what is the speed of the hard drive in these units?

[richUK]

---

George_R wrote:

Everyone is talking about network speeds not being where they should be but one other factor that has not been mentioned is the Hard Drive. HD speed will also effectively limit your transfer rates. If the drive can't write the data, then it will not allow more to be received. I did a quick Google on it but could not find out what is the speed of the hard drive in these units?

---

Its a WD Scorpio Blue with a SATA 3 Gb/s interface.

http://wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=140

I think you will find that the hard disk is fast enough and as has been said its the internal workings of the player that reduces the speed.