just to check, does uname -a actual return 2.6.31.x ? (for you?)
armel:~# uname -a
Linux armel.lenny.local 188.8.131.52 #1 PREEMPT Mon Apr 6 22:33:31 CDT 2009 armv5tel GNU/Linux
Linux LS-GL 184.108.40.206 #1 Thu Oct 1 22:18:33 EST 2009 armv5tel GNU/Linux
(or as above if I switch back to the stock kernel that came with your distrib)
Have you tried transfers w/ a different host/computer? I'm assuming these is a wired transfer.
Yes, the connection is wired, and I get the same problem with 2 different computers accessing the ls via samba (both running Windows XP (yeah, yeah, I know))
Is your router one w/ Gb Enet?
Yes. I tried playing around with jumbo frames settings on the desktop machine (setting that to 7K, and changing the mtu on the ls to 7000), in case that helped, but that only made things worse, in that the pauses between bursts of copying would be even longer.
I've even swapped out all my old network kit (netgear gs605 + linksys befsx41) for a new router (d-link 655), but that doesn't make any difference either (apart from the fact that I now have a much nicer router
If it helps, here's the output from ifconfig -
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:16:01:41:85:b1
inet addr:192.168.1.2 Bcast:192.168.255.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::216:1ff:fe41:581b/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:11539103 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:6192250 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
RX bytes:4211363296 (3.9 GiB) TX bytes:359887571 (343.2 MiB)
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:8 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:8 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
RX bytes:576 (576.0 B) TX bytes:576 (576.0 B)
What kind of performance do you get w/ nfs or afp?
Haven't tried this yet, based on the benchmarks below, and the fact that I already tried another network protocol (ftp) that was also slow; I've been too busy with real life to learn all about nfs, afp, and how to get windows to play nicely with them, too
Do you really think it's worth a go?
This sounds like it could be a problem w/ your local network's settings or topology.
With my armel lenny LSProV2 I get about 13-15MB/sec write. Read from it is 15-20MB sec.
Here's what I get using mine -
time to copy a 150MB on to the linkstation via samba - 4 minutes 15 seconds - 0.6MB/sec
time to read that file back off of the linkstation via samba - 11 seconds - 13.6MB/sec
time to cp the file from /dev/sda6 (ext4) to /dev/sda2 (ext3) - 3 minutes 35 seconds - 0.7MB/sec
It's especially this last result that makes me suspicious that this isn't a network problem; what sort of throughput do other people see on their systems?
The only other thought I've had is that perhaps it's a memory problem, but memtest86+ only seems to work at boot-time (...). I've tried using memtester instead. That doesn't find any errors if I ask it to run "memtester 100", but if I try anything much larger than that, memtester is just killed (presumably because the system sees it as a memory-hogging nuisance
edit: thought I might add my /etc/fstab in case that gives any clues, too -
/dev/sda1 /boot ext2 noauto,noatime 1 2
/dev/sda2 / ext3 defaults,noatime,nodiratime 0 1
/dev/sda5 none swap sw 0 0
proc /proc proc defaults 0 0
shm /dev/shm tmpfs nodev,nosuid,noexec 0 0
/dev/sda6 /mnt/disk1 ext4 defaults,noatime,nodiratime 0 0