[Marius]

HI James,

Spent the whole afternoon on ripping 7 gb Wagner opera's ......... and transferring them now to the BDP's attached HDD. I thought it best to connect wired to the network for speeds sake. But it takes almost 28 minutes to transfer the files to the HDD.

Is this correct? This way there is no advantage over a wireless connection...

Greetings,
Marius

[James Tanner]

The BDP-1's network interface is limited to 100 Mb transfer speed so that translates to about 230 MB per minute. Average CD would be about 2-3 minutes.

james

[Marius]

so my 28 minutes is correct..

hence again the question to rethink the NAS thought.  Gigabyte throughput and USB connectivity to the BDP...
hope somehow you'll find a way.

Thanks James,
Marius

The BDP-1's network interface is limited to 100 Mb transfer speed so that translates to about 230 MB per minute. Average CD would be about 2-3 minutes.

james

[srb]

The BDP-1's network interface is limited to 100 Mb transfer speed so that translates to about 230 MB per minute. Average CD would be about 2-3 minutes.

IF you can realize the full 100mb per second network speed, that would translate to 12.5MB per second or ~ 750MB per minute.  A CD should only take about a minute.
 
Steve

[ricko01]

remember that a network (unless you are doing lots of concurrent actvitity), and especially a hardwired one,  essentially has no latency.

But when you are using it as a conduit to a harddrive... the hard drive has lots of latency (unless it is SSD).

So the harddrive is the bottleneck..and ignore the theoretical promise of the USB channel... again its all restricted by the disk drive.

So the real throughput of copying data over a network is based on the disk drive not the network.

[James Tanner]

remember that a network (unless you are doing lots of concurrent actvitity), and especially a hardwired one,  essentially has no latency.

But when you are using it as a conduit to a harddrive... the hard drive has lots of latency (unless it is SSD).

So the harddrive is the bottleneck..and ignore the theoretical promise of the USB channel... again its all restricted by the disk drive.

So the real throughput of copying data over a network is based on the disk drive not the network.

Very interesting - did not know that.

james

[ricko01]

Very interesting - did not know that.

james

The high end disk enclosures used in enterprise level systems (and we are talking big bucks here) are all fronted by lots of cache memory, which means (in most situations) that when data is sent to the harddrives, it only needs to hit the cache (ie the read or write is satisfied immediately) and then is "destaged" as needed later on.

Also they contain many harddrives which use special techniques (such as striping, hotspot migration etc) so that a single drive doesnt get saturated.

But your consumer based enclosures dont have this, so your speed is determined by the small amount of onboard memory the drives has. The saturation point of the drives in a consumer based enclosure is very small.

As with all things... speed costs money.

Peter

PS... and aside from onboard cache, you have rotational speed diffence between different disk drives (5krpm, 7.5krpm, 10krpm, 15krpm) which alter throughput characteristics

PSS...and you have all the handoffs occuring...if I understand the situation... PC reads data from its disk (bottleneck 1)... stages this into the network subsystem on PC (bottleneck 2)... transfer to the BDP across the  network (bottleneck 3)... BDP stages this from its network subsystem  to the USB subsystem(bottleneck 4)... then writes to the BDP attached drive (bottleneck 5)

[srb]

So the real throughput of copying data over a network is based on the disk drive not the network.

SATA 1 has a maximum transfer speed of 1,200Mb/s or 150MB/s and SATA 2 has a maximum transfer speed of 2,400Mb/s or 300MB/s, and even taking latency into account, a 100Mb/s network is a bottleneck.  With a 1Gb/s network, the disk drive is the becomes the bottleneck.
 
Steve

[ricko01]

SATA 1 has a maximum transfer speed of 1,200Mb/s or 150MB/s and SATA 2 has a maximum transfer speed of 2,400Mb/s or 300MB/s, and even taking latency into account, a 100Mb/s network is a bottleneck.  With a 1Gb/s network, the disk drive is the becomes the bottleneck.
 
Steve

SATA is an interface protocol... ie a way of transferring data between a host adapter and a target adapter.

Thats what the throughtput spec on SATA is...

It doesnt include the disk drive....so dont confuse the interface speed with the disk write speed.

Peter

[srb]

Let's talk about real world throughput numbers.  I can transfer a 635MB album folder over my 1Gb/s network from one consumer 7200rpm SATA 2 drive to another in 22 seconds (transfer rate of ~29MB/s).  If I throttle the network speed down to 100Mb/s, my time more than doubles because the slower network speed has now become my bottleneck.
 
I stand by my earlier estimate of about a minute per album transfer time on a 100Mb/s network (with no other network traffic).
 
Steve

[Marius]

I'll check the HDD again, but it is been sold as a high speed USB3 HDD...Have a Gbnetwork, so bottleneck is the BDP and HDD, since the BDP also is 100mb throughput...no?

would this be the advocate for a dedicated NaS solution? Many times I've whished the BDP would be able to read off off an USB-attached real NAS, that could also be approached by all my other media searching apps and machines. James indicates that the BDP is seen as a NAs, but it is not DNLA so no other machine in the house that uses this universal standard can use it....

Greetings,
Marius

Let's talk about real world throughput numbers.  I can transfer a 635MB album folder over my 1Gb/s network from one consumer 7200rpm SATA 2 drive to another in 22 seconds (transfer rate of ~29MB/s).  If I throttle the network speed down to 100Mb/s, my time more than doubles because the slower network speed has now become my bottleneck.
 
I stand by my earlier estimate of about a minute per album transfer time on a 100Mb/s network (with no other network traffic).
 
Steve

[srb]

I'll check the HDD again, but it is been sold as a high speed USB3 HDD...Have a Gbnetwork, so bottleneck is the BDP and HDD, since the BDP also is 100mb throughput...no?

Yes, in this case if the BDP-1 has a 100Mb Ethernet network interface it would likely be the bottleneck, but as far as the time that it takes to copy a library to the local USB hard drive, what does it really matter whether it takes 20 seconds or one minute to transfer an album?  That only needs to be done once, unless metadata tags for an album are altered and the album needs to be re-copied to the drive.
 
Because the albums are being ripped on another computer, it is more likely that any backup routines would be backing up the library from that computer and not from the BDP-1 connected drive(s), so a higher speed interface probably wouldn't be an advantage for that function either.
 
As far as being able to use NAS storage as the playback drive for the BDP-1, I understand that you would like the BDP-1 to access a central library that other computers can also access, but apparently Bryston has made the decision not to go in that direction for now and are instead pursuing a USB drive enclosure.
 
Steve

[Marius]

yep, guess you're right about the transfer times, although it took me 28 min to transfer a ripped Wagner Ring (14 cd's). Seems a bit unnneccesary these days.

To be honest I more and more get the feeling the industry is mainly focussed on the pop/jazz scene and forgets about classical. See iTunes presenting an All Mozart Symphonies edition as "143 songs".....the Albumart discussion about multiple artists/composers and multiple disc editions....and also this "it takes only 2 minutes per disc to transfer-discussion". There are a lot of spending customers left out this way.

About the NAS: more of a question for James: since you see the BDP1 as a NAS, would it then be possible to make the BDP1 DLNA compliant? That way we could have the best of both worlds.

(fingers crossed)

Greetings,
Marius

Yes, in this case if the BDP-1 has a 100Mb Ethernet network interface it would likely be the bottleneck, but as far as the time that it takes to copy a library to the local USB hard drive, what does it really matter whether it takes 20 seconds or one minute to transfer an album?  That only needs to be done once, unless metadata tags for an album are altered and the album needs to be re-copied to the drive.
 
Because the albums are being ripped on another computer, it is more likely that any backup routines would be backing up the library from that computer and not from the BDP-1 connected drive(s), so a higher speed interface probably wouldn't be an advantage for that function either.
 
As far as being able to use NAS storage as the playback drive for the BDP-1, I understand that you would like the BDP-1 to access a central library that other computers can also access, but apparently Bryston has made the decision not to go in that direction for now and are instead pursuing a USB drive enclosure.
 
Steve

[jjc1]

I transfer my downloads to my hard drive using a USB connection to my laptop. Takes about 10 seconds for a hi-rez download and about 15 seconds to disconnect the hard drive from the BDP and reconnect to my laptop. That's about 25 seconds. Sounds like it sure beats doing  this over a network.