New
#51
Why is copying data between my 2 computers VERY slow?
-
-
New #52
Boy, now we are all getting our bits and bytes and M's and G's all scrambled up
10GB does not equate to 80Mbps. I think you were trying to say 10 megabytes per second would be 80 megabits per second.
Technically speaking, Windows file copy can handle that just fine.
On average
10 megabits per second = 1,250,000 bytes per second. Or about 1.2 megabytes a second
100 megabits per second = 12,500,000 bytes per second. Or around 12 megabytes per second
1000 megabits per second = 125,000,000 bytes per second. Or around 125 megabytes per second
Also, on average, Ethernet is only about 80% efficient. So, if you take 12 megabytes per second times .80 = ~10 megabytes per second that I quoted before.
The problem with moving to a gigabit network, is that most home users don't have hard drives which can transfer over 100MB/s and sustain that rate. And even if they have one machine with an SSD or a RAID array, they probably don't have a second computer which could keep up with it. Hence the reason that most home users cannot max out a gigabit connection. So, generally on a good home network with gigabit...you typically see max transfers around 60-70 megabytes per second. That's about all you are ever going to see.Last edited by pparks1; 14 Jan 2010 at 08:56.
-
New #53
Yeah, looked at what I typed and saw the "GB".
I've never seen windows file copy come *close* to 80Mbps. Not even iperf tests came any where near that unless the two machines were real screamers.
Your post was spot on though.
-
-
-
New #56
Uh oh... do i see a sarah palin and hilary clinton debate?
-
-
New #58
-
New #59
I wonder what kind of files did the thread starter copy... if he (assuming the thread starter = male) copied lots of small files (~4kB to 100kB each), then it's not the network connection that is chugging... it's his drive that's chugging... Mechanical disks can't seek fast enough to maintain high enough random read speed on tiny files that are scattered all over the disk. Some SSD can cope with such workload, but majority of them (for now) is almost as slow...
zzz2496
-
New #60
The poster did indicate the problem with my post. In my example section, I said 10 megabits...but then followed up with 100 megabytes and 1000 megabytes. He wrote [sic] next to the sections which were incorrect. I have since corrected my post so that it is accurate. We all make mistakes from time to time and I'd rather be told about mine so that I can fix them then just let them slide....so thanks to surfasb
I too would be interested to see if this problem gets corrected or what types of files they were. It's always disappointing to see somebody running at a slower speed than they should. At least the OP knows it's not right, I feel bad about those who just assume all is fine.
Quote
Related Discussions