Both NAS’s are connected to the same switch being fed by one cable from the router; all are Cat5e
And… (It was a 2-part question.)
This is a possible problem – which, incidentally, we have seen before on Synology
Supports auto-negotiation: No
...
Advertised auto-negotiation: No
...
Auto-negotiation: off
Auto-negotiation isn’t available on your NAS, which is crazy for a gigabit interface: it should be there. Unfortunately, on an unmanaged switch, we have no way of working around this problem.
If possible, can you repeat the iperf3 stats from a Raspberry Pi? Ideally it should be in a similar place on the LAN as the Vero.
Interesting … Ran iperf3 from the RPi2 and got this:
osmc@osmc:~$ iperf3 -R -c 10.0.0.10
Connecting to host 10.0.0.10, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 10.0.0.10 is sending
[ 4] local 10.0.0.2 port 56208 connected to 10.0.0.10 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.0 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.2 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.0 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.2 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 113 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 34 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 94.2 Mbits/sec receiver
So, if the RPi2 has 100 Mbit ethernet, this is about as good as it gets, right?
By the way, the RPi2 sits on the same switch (another one, but 8-port) as the Vero4K+
Those figures are as good as it gets for a 100 Mbit interface. What happens if you attach the Pi to the Vero’s LAN cable?
Fairly much the same reading:
osmc@osmc:~$ iperf3 -R -c 10.0.0.10
Connecting to host 10.0.0.10, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 10.0.0.10 is sending
[ 4] local 10.0.0.2 port 56236 connected to 10.0.0.10 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.0 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.2 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.2 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 11.2 MBytes 94.1 Mbits/sec
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 94.4 Mbits/sec 37 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 112 MBytes 94.2 Mbits/sec receiver
So I guess that kind of rules out any cabling issues at this end?
Then I think we need to bring @sam_nazarko into the conversation.
It seems that either the Vero4K+ is faulty or something in its network stack is reacting badly to traffic from the Synology NAS (perhaps a duplex mismatch, but TBH it’s difficult to say what’s odd, if anything, on the NAS side).
Thanx for all your time and help so far!
I should also mention that I tried one other thing as well earlier today, which was to switch the Vero4K+ to wifi instead of cabled ethernet, which seemed to make 1080p playback (both high and low bitrate) work from the old NAS 1 (413j, the one we were focusing on just now) and even UHD HEVC came through, although a bit choppy, which is what can be expected on 802.11n at 5 GHz, I guess … But thats not really a solution. Hopefully that can provide some clue to all this enigmatic stuff …?
Can you test with iperf against a PC?
Sam
Hi, Sam! I have a cabled Mac Pro on the same string as both the RPi2 and Vero4K+ (one cable from the router feeds a 5 port switch, which feeds RPi, Vero, Mac Pro and 2 other units) So you want me to run iperf3 on the Mac in server mode?
That would be helpful (you can run iperf3 in either direction). Ideally both would be helpful.
1 Like
Ok, one moment … gotta get iperf3 into the Mac first, which is a bit messy …
Ok, that was another deal …
osmc@VERO4K:~$ iperf3 -R -c 10.0.0.5
Connecting to host 10.0.0.5, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 10.0.0.5 is sending
[ 4] local 10.0.0.3 port 58990 connected to 10.0.0.5 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 112 MBytes 935 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 112 MBytes 940 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 110 MBytes 926 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 114 MBytes 956 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 112 MBytes 941 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 112 MBytes 942 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 111 MBytes 931 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 110 MBytes 927 Mbits/sec
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 113 MBytes 950 Mbits/sec
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 939 Mbits/sec sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 1.09 GBytes 939 Mbits/sec receiver
iperf Done.
osmc@VERO4K:~$ iperf3 -c 10.0.0.5
Connecting to host 10.0.0.5, port 5201
[ 4] local 10.0.0.3 port 58996 connected to 10.0.0.5 port 5201
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd
[ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 30.6 MBytes 257 Mbits/sec 301 29.7 KBytes
[ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 17.8 MBytes 149 Mbits/sec 25 15.6 KBytes
[ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 15.6 MBytes 131 Mbits/sec 27 22.6 KBytes
[ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 15.2 MBytes 127 Mbits/sec 26 19.8 KBytes
[ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 12.4 MBytes 104 Mbits/sec 35 31.1 KBytes
[ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 13.7 MBytes 115 Mbits/sec 31 18.4 KBytes
[ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 12.6 MBytes 106 Mbits/sec 30 35.4 KBytes
[ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 9.30 MBytes 77.9 Mbits/sec 37 28.3 KBytes
[ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 16.8 MBytes 141 Mbits/sec 24 8.48 KBytes
[ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 20.5 MBytes 172 Mbits/sec 12 33.9 KBytes
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 165 MBytes 138 Mbits/sec 548 sender
[ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 161 MBytes 135 Mbits/sec receiver
Can you gather anything from this?
That’s quite low.
When did you buy this? Do you have the order number?
We had some Ethernet issues with some units some months ago but fixed this quite a while ago.
Sam
1 Like
Its been quite a while since I bought it, as I didn’t have time and missed a few other items, so it was laying around up until now … Order number was 19069 
So it was late July, but I didn’t receive it until somewhat later, as I recall …
Oh wow … well, that would explain a few things of course … Thank you so much, I’ll do that. Should I refer to this thread?