What actual speed of WD TV Live Hub?

What real actual speed of the byte-by-byte transfer is from internet to WD TV Live Hub … and … from Computer to the WD TV Live Hub?  I use the router D-Link DIR-300.

Approximately 10 megabytes per second.   Some people get more, some get less.

10 megabytes per second.???

I get 5 megabytes per second from computer and

 only 1 megabytes per second from Internet … I do not know why?

Does work from USB 2.0 computer to USB 2.0 of HUB directly without Router?

Your speed from the Internet will depend on what bandwidth you have from your ISP. If you’ve got about an 8 Mb/s link then 1 MB/s is about right.

How is your Hub connected to your computer? What kind of sustained downloads is your computer capable of? Is all your media on a USB connected disk on that computer?

you wrote:“How is your Hub connected to your computer? " - I use the router D-Link DIR-300.
you wrote:” What kind of sustained downloads is your computer capable of?" - Approximately 9 megabytes per second.
you wrote:" Is all your media on a USB connected disk on that computer?" - All media are on the hard disk of my computer

What kind of connection exists between the router and the computer and the router and the WD TV? Are they both direct network cables or are you using WiFi or HomePlug? Do things improve if you use a decent 100 Mb/s or Gbit switch?

How did you test and confirm the 9 MB/s (72 Mb/s) sustained download?

I use a decent 100 Mb/s or Gbit switch. I use HomePlug

I confirm the 9 MB/s (72 Mb/s) sustained download!

A bit more explanation would be useful. Please answer all of the following questions with as much detail as possible:

  • What is the switch - 100 Mb/s or Gbit? What is the make and model?
  • Is the computer directly connected to the switch, or is it connected to the HomePlug?
  • What HomePlug device are you using (make and model)?
  • Is the WD TV Live Hub directly connected to the switch, or is it connected to the HomePlug?
  • Did you confirm the 9 MB/s speed by connecting a computer in place of the WD TV Live Hub, or did you do it in some other way?

First of all , Creators, tell me!!

Creators of WD TV Live Hub have to know :” What real actual speed of the byte-by-byte transfer is from internet to WD TV Live Hub … and … from a computer to the WD TV Live Hub?”

Second we will think about my problem to use WD TV Live Hub.

Wow.   It’s like talking to ELIZA.

What or who is ELIZA?

ELIZA is a computer program and an early example of primitive natural language processing. ELIZA operated by processing users’ responses to scripts, the most famous of which was DOCTOR, a simulation of a Rogerian psychotherapist. Using almost no information about human thought or emotion, DOCTOR sometimes provided a startlingly human-like interaction. ELIZA was written at MIT by Joseph Weizenbaum between 1964 to 1966.
When the “patient” exceeded the very small knowledge base, DOCTOR might provide a generic response, for example, responding to “My head hurts” with “Why do you say your head hurts?” The response to “My mother hates me” would be “Who else in your family hates you?” ELIZA was implemented using simple pattern matching techniques, but was taken seriously by several of its users, even after Weizenbaum explained to them how it worked. It was one of the first chatterbots in existence.

Creators of WD TV Live Hub have to know :” What real actual speed of the byte-by-byte transfer is from internet to WD TV Live Hub … and … from a computer to the WD TV Live Hub?”

As has already been said - the speed from each (Internet and another computer) depends on far more than the WD TV live hub. The interface is clearly documented as being Gbit, which is the absolute maximum transfer speed. The on board hard disk probably has a maximum transfer speed in the same general region.

However, were you to answer my questions instead of being evasive we may be able to help you work out what the problem is:

  • What is the switch - 100 Mb/s or Gbit? What is the make and model?
  • Is the computer directly connected to the switch, or is it connected to the HomePlug?
  • What HomePlug device are you using (make and model)?
  • Is the WD TV Live Hub directly connected to the switch, or is it connected to the HomePlug?
  • Did you confirm the 9 MB/s speed by connecting a computer in place of the WD TV Live Hub, or did you do it in some other way?

Answer all of those and we may be able to explain to you why you are seeing lower bandwidth than others are seeing. Continue to avoid answering the questions and there’s little point in people trying to help you… :cry:

OK, not to interject but I’ll hop in the fray here. I think what the thread creator might be saying is that the network connection speed is slower than advertised. The Hub advertises a gig internet connection, I have the hub connected to an Apple Airport which is also a gigabit connection via a CAT 6 cable which can handle a gig connection. My Macbook is connected to the Airport via a 802.11n connection. Lets take the internet out of the equation and just talk about file transfer over the LAN. Even if my wireless connection was picking up a ton of interferance (which it isn’t) is should be getting at least 100mbps data transfer over the LAN. Yesterday it took me around 20 minutes to transfer a file that was 1.67gb from my Macbook to the Hub. I’m no math wiz but that figures out to about 10mbps right? So where is the hold up? The HD write speed?

I’d agree that I think that’s what the OP is saying, but it would be good to know what their setup is. Then we can spot whether part of it is causing a slowdown, or whether the problem is entirely with the Hub.

No, it doesn’t advertise a Gig Internet connection.

The specification says it has a Gigabit Ethernet port, and that’s exactly what it has.

All it means is that the interface is 802.3ab compliant, and that’s ALL it means.

No one should *EVER* infer that ANY device that has a Gigabit Ethernet port will *EVER* get even close to that speed.

There are NO “advertisements” or anything in the specifications that indicate the throughput capabilities of the box.

I have about 14 devices in my network that have Gigabit Ethernet ports, and only 2 of them even get close to 500 megabits per second (my NAS boxes)

On your wireless performance:   It doesn’t take much interference at all to reduce a 802.11n connection below 100 megabits/second, and that’s at 5.8GHz range.   It’s almost impossible to get even close to 100 megabits per second, even under ideal circumstances at 2.4GHz.

Your timing would indicate 11 megabits per second, or roughty 1.4 megabytes per second.   That’s about 1/6th of what you ought to be able to get.  

Here’s my performance to my 802.11n, 5.8GHz Hub, the last time I tested it:

Untitled.png

10.4 MegaBYTES per second, almost 7x faster than your performance.

1 Like

So what is the hangup then? This isn’t my first rodeo or router. I have interference robustness on and multicast rate/transmit power up all the way on the device. Bottom line is this particular router can’t get any faster. I don’t expect a gig of throughput but i should be getting faster speeds within the LAN. When I transfer the same file to another conputer in the network it takes 3 minutes tops. Isn’t a bit disingenuous to suggest that there is no problem with network transfer rates given the multitude of complaints on this forum? Certainly we’re not all mother-in-laws who don’t know how to set up our equipment. 

Heheh…  Wonderfully put.  :smileyvery-happy:

Off the top of my head, the following things are most responsible for poor WiFi performance:

  1-  Co-channel interference  (Any other 802.11(x) device occupying the same RF channel.

  2- Adjacent Channel interference.   Remember that there are only three “Clear” channels in 2.4GHz WiFi:  1, 6, and 11.    All the other channels overlap those to some degree.   5.8GHz has dozens of clear channels; in fact, they’re ALL clear channels.   No overlap.

  3- Non-802.11 RF interference  (Bluetooth devices, Microwave ovens, baby monitors, cordless phones, etc… anything that uses the ISM band will interfere.)   Without a spectrum analyzer, such things are almost impossible to determine.

  4-  802.11b/g/n “Mixed Mode.”    If ANY device on your network is using 802.11g, it pretty much requires *ALL* devices to operate at 802.11g data rates, even if they’re 802.11n capable.    That’s why I keep my “n” devices in the 5.8Ghz range.

There’s tons of info online about how to mitigate WiFi issues…  But given that so many of the environmental aspects are beyond anyone’s control, it’s only a “Best Effort” type of thing.

I build enterprise networks for a major Fortune-500 corporation.   I recently completed a project that involved, in part, the installation of about 50 802.11a/b/g/n dual-band APs in about a 40,000 square feet of a 200,000+ sq.ft. building.

Performance is PHENOMENAL as long as the clients are on the INTERIOR sections of the building.   The closer one gets to the windows, the worse the performance.    Why?   Because there are 6 hotels right across the highway, and they have their APs turned up SO HIGH that they bleed into my building.   Very little I can do about that.  I can mitigate some of the issues, but I can’t eliminate the interference.   At best, when my test system is directly UNDERNEATH these access points, I can only get about 120 megabits per second throughput.  When I’m in the interior sections, I’ve seen 250 megabits per second.

By the way, “Multicast Rate” doesn’t improve performance for file sharing protocols…  That’s a highly specific use case.

Interference Robustness only adjusts packet sizes in an attempt to improve the RELIABILITY of packet delivery in a “Noisy” network.   But it can actually wallop performance in many cases because smaller packets it uses dramatically increases overhead.  ( http://www.macinstruct.com/node/213)

Transmit Power should *NEVER* be higher than necessary.   Otherwise you’re one of those hotels I mention.   It’s also a somewhat fruitless attempt to “Drown Out” the neighbors.   You’re far better off changing channels to one that’s less noisy.  And if you’re on speaking terms with your neighbors, you can “Coordinate” channels to avoid interference much more fruitfully.

 Isn’t a bit disingenuous to suggest that there is no problem with network transfer rates given the multitude of complaints on this forum?

No, that’s just indicative of how many naive people there are.  I am merely stating that someone who reads the statement “Gigabit Ethernet Port” and believes that means the device should operate at that level of throughput is going to be sorely disappointed. 

And any other question about performance is going to be purely subjective.   I mean, is 150 Mbit/sec good enough?  Or 300?  700?  Or 999?    At what point would people be satisfied? 

Network devices that can actually perform at Gigabit throughput are FAR more expensive (20x or more?) than what users paid for the Hub.

2 Likes

Thanks for this information. It is very useful to me. I am determined to get better performance out of my wireless network. I have a scanning utility that will let me know the channels of the nearby networks (since I live in a suburb it sees like there are hundreds) and see if I can get a clear one. I will turn multicast down and turn of interference robustness also. Thanks again.

It is great and right … “I’d agree that I think that’s what the OP is saying, but it would be good to know what their setup is. Then we can spot whether part of it is causing a slowdown, or whether the problem is entirely with the Hub.”