Both are quite weak for today's standards. Furthermore you wouldn't want the file transfers to choke your internet connection. Either separate the functions of router and nas, or get a beefy router with multiple cores and over 1GHz freq.
1 Like
I am using different router for internet, this one is only for nas and downloads
A raspberry pi with dietpi os would be a better idea in my opinion.
2 Likes
Yeah I know... It's just that it's costs more than my budget for the time being and I'm getting a cheap deal of a7 like 15 bucks.
how is the disk formatted? NTFS (windows default) is very heavy for OpenWrt.
I have tried most common formats.. fat32, ext2,3,4 before finally going with NTFS. Fat32 has the same speed as NTFS as i observed. Ext2,3 seemed a bit slower. Ext4 speeds are quite close to NTFS and fat32.
Not using fat32 because of its 4gb limit.
Not using ext4 due to not able to mount the partition in windows pc for file transfer.
The ASUS RT-N13U B1 is based on a ramips RT3052 SOC, single-core, 384 MHz mips 24Kc, it's severely underpowered (CPU bound) for your plans - and the figures you get are in line of what I'd expect for this device. Yes, an archer a7 will be faster than that, but it won't be good either (less than twice the performance you're getting now). These routers haven't been made with NAS uses in mind and aren't capable of doing with satisfactory performance, modern multi-core ARM routers tend to be better in this regard, but even those aren't made for that task either.
trendy's advice to look into alternatives, e.g. RPi4, is the only sensible choice here.
1 Like
exFat is really what you looking for. NTFS is too heavy and as you point out FAT32 has 4gb limit.
Also new kernel builds have got exFAT in the kernel directly. Wether OpenWRT is using those kernels is another matter 
EXT4, XFS & exFAT Enjoy Some Nice Improvements With Linux 5.13 - Phoronix
I have a PI4 with Ubuntu 20.04 LTS on it. Used for docker containers and a Plex server which uses an external 4tb off a powered usb hub. Recently upgraded from using a usb3 stick as its root fs to a external SSD (thus the need for powered usb hub as two powered usb3 devices is too much for the pi to supply power to)
Works beautifully. The ssd is FAR better for read/writes but running it off a usb3 stick is still acceptable. It worked ok from the Sdcard but sdcards are prone to corruption if the power glitches.
OP might want to consider devices with SATA ports. Some are quite cheap on eBay: Click for ToH list
1 Like
And just to make me eat my words...
OpenWrt 21.02.0 Fourth release candidate - Release and security announcements - OpenWrt Forum
1 Like
How much performance increase are we talking about here with exfat in kernel directly compared to ntfs? Can you be able to give me a general idea?
If it's more than significant then i would definitely try fourth RC.
There was a time when ntfs seemed heavy on system, it was taking all of cpu when downloading something off of aria2, but after playing with mount options a bit, managed to get it going again with low cpu utilization. It didn't improve file transfer speeds though.
I'm using a Pi4 with ubuntu 20.04 not openwrt however my external drive is more than fast enough for streaming my Plex server
root@ubuntu:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
/dev/sdb:
Timing cached reads: 1852 MB in 2.00 seconds = 927.15 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 162 MB in 3.00 seconds = 53.94 MB/sec
for comparison my SSD via adaptor is :
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 1844 MB in 2.00 seconds = 923.04 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 956 MB in 3.00 seconds = 318.21 MB/sec
:edit: also exFat is perfect for swapping between windows or linux. I however cheat and just SMB mounted the external for lazy copying over the network. However when i do have a fair bit of data to throw at it, I power down the pi and plug hdd into my pc for direct usb3 transfers.
Thats due to the kernel NTFS being buggy and old. The FUSE driver is far better. However the kernel driver is going to get a massive update shortly.
The New NTFS Driver Looks Like It Will Finally Be Ready With Linux 5.15 - Phoronix
Well, thanks for performance test...
here's my results from the same command.
root@OpenWrt:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 170 MB in 2.01 seconds = 84.57 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 84 MB in 3.01 seconds = 27.95 MB/sec
root@OpenWrt:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda
with a7, it might go over or below 250, if that's what you're saying then i guess it's not worth it.
That's with NTFS right? which driver is it using?
Actually if u have a spare usb3 key. you could try a little test. Format it with NTFS and throw something on it and pull a test on it. Then wipe and redo the test with exFAT. See what you get from that. Admittedly you are only testing that device but then you would get better idea of the overheads of the filesystem.
Yes, NTFS. Using ntfs-3g driver.
I do not have usb3 key atm, but will try with exfat partition for speed testing..
well, i just tested what i could. Made a new partition exFAT.
sda1 = ntfs
sda2 = exfat
sda3 = ext4 (running extroot)
root@OpenWrt:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda1
/dev/sda1:
Timing cached reads: 160 MB in 2.00 seconds = 79.84 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 88 MB in 3.06 seconds = 28.74 MB/sec
root@OpenWrt:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda2
/dev/sda2:
Timing cached reads: 180 MB in 2.00 seconds = 89.80 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 96 MB in 3.06 seconds = 31.35 MB/sec
root@OpenWrt:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda1
/dev/sda1:
Timing cached reads: 180 MB in 2.01 seconds = 89.38 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 90 MB in 3.04 seconds = 29.56 MB/sec
root@OpenWrt:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda2
/dev/sda2:
Timing cached reads: 176 MB in 2.00 seconds = 87.88 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 96 MB in 3.04 seconds = 31.58 MB/sec
root@OpenWrt:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda1
/dev/sda1:
Timing cached reads: 182 MB in 2.02 seconds = 89.94 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 88 MB in 3.01 seconds = 29.24 MB/sec
root@OpenWrt:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda2
/dev/sda2:
Timing cached reads: 178 MB in 2.02 seconds = 88.09 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 96 MB in 3.04 seconds = 31.60 MB/sec
root@OpenWrt:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda3
/dev/sda3:
Timing cached reads: 180 MB in 2.01 seconds = 89.76 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 96 MB in 3.05 seconds = 31.51 MB/sec
root@OpenWrt:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda3
/dev/sda3:
Timing cached reads: 176 MB in 2.00 seconds = 87.83 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 94 MB in 3.00 seconds = 31.29 MB/sec
Here results seems quite the same.
But file transfer between pc and router is a different story.
NTFS
Read/write 64MB
[Read]
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 8, T= 1): 2.096 MB/s [ 2.0 IOPS] <606467.88 us>
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 1, T= 1): 7.758 MB/s [ 7.4 IOPS] <132447.04 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16): 1.530 MB/s [ 373.5 IOPS] <877618.31 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 1, T= 1): 0.899 MB/s [ 219.5 IOPS] < 4543.78 us>
[Write]
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 8, T= 1): 1.677 MB/s [ 1.6 IOPS] <2343862.88 us>
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 1, T= 1): 6.080 MB/s [ 5.8 IOPS] <170593.84 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16): 1.439 MB/s [ 351.3 IOPS] <1225928.69 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 1, T= 1): 1.389 MB/s [ 339.1 IOPS] < 2942.57 us>
exFAT
[Read]
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 8, T= 1): 10.484 MB/s [ 10.0 IOPS] <734417.02 us>
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 1, T= 1): 10.275 MB/s [ 9.8 IOPS] <100658.31 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16): 2.295 MB/s [ 560.3 IOPS] <716753.42 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 1, T= 1): 0.831 MB/s [ 202.9 IOPS] < 4922.19 us>
[Write]
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 8, T= 1): 8.389 MB/s [ 8.0 IOPS] <912847.75 us>
Sequential 1MiB (Q= 1, T= 1): 8.178 MB/s [ 7.8 IOPS] <127759.57 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16): 1.970 MB/s [ 481.0 IOPS] <916515.30 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 1, T= 1): 1.846 MB/s [ 450.7 IOPS] < 2215.85 us>
exfat is the winner here..
Tested multiple times, similar results.
I don't think i can increase the speed any further than this even with fourth RC, since my pc's port is being bottlenecked.
My pc lan speed is 1 gbps, while router lan port speed is 100Mbps, do you think router with gigabit port may increase the speed, at least for wired transfers? I am not asking for super strong speeds like when hdd is directly connected to pc, just bearable speeds.. like 15-20 Mbps... would that be possible with router like a7?
1 Like
pretty much murders NTFS. Maybe when the new NTFS driver is in kernel it would be better but honestly exfat for media storage is pretty damn nice.
My BT Hub 5 has gigabit ports. But don't forget you will also need good set of Lan cables. I recently tested a bunch of mine and found a couple that would only sync at 100mbs rather than the full 1gbps. They have since been labelled and thrown in the cupboard. (one of them was only 4pair but oddly the 2nd was 8pair but the labelling indicates it is cat5 but will not sync at 1gbs)
In short. Your router is the weak point with its 100mbs ports. For internet this isnt a problem however as you are throwing data at the drive attached to the router... updating to a 1gbps version is a good move.
Just noticed the A7 only has USB2 port. you will max that at 30MB/s (reading) roughly. (Theoretical max is 53MB/s but that is absolute maximum) Maybe 20MB/s writing? will depend on caches and the drive you have attached.
Maybe i should wait a bit and grab router with usb3.0 instead? Nevertheless, i'm fine with even 20 MB/s read/write.
This topic was automatically closed 10 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.