Why is copying data between my 2 computers VERY slow?

[chev65]

You can just as easily roll the driver back by using Device Manager, although I think I might try a restart first just to make sure.

These drivers should be working for you provided that you followed these steps.
Network Connectivity - Drivers and software for Intel® Gigabit and PRO/1000 Network Adapters

Multi language: PROWIN7x64.exeDownload

Ver:14.8.3Date:12/16/2009Size:14812 (KB)Time @56Kbps:34.29 min

OS:Windows 7, 64-bit*, Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise*, Windows Server 2008 R2 for Datacenter*, Windows Server 2008 R2 Foundation*, Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard*, Windows Web Server 2008

Don't forget this part!>>>
NOTE: If you installed version 14.8, 14.8.1, or 14.8.2 of Intel® Network Connections software, you must completely uninstall the software before installing version 14.8.3.
That would include the OP! You may need to look in add/remove programs to uninstall this software. Also uninstall from Device manager before you install the new driver and software.

This download is NOT for Microsoft Windows 2000*, Windows XP*, Windows Server 2003*, Windows Vista*, or Windows Server 2008*.

 

[shiphen]

A silly question on my part: Did you reboot after making the change?

Yes I did.

I noticed you have the ethernet port in your XP box set for autodetect and the ethernet port in your new W7 system manually set for Full Duplex. This causes a duplex mismatch in the switch portion of the router which can affect transfers.

You might try setting the new W7 NIC to auto.

How do I set the new Win7 NIC to auto??

 

[acurasd]

Shipen,
if you would like to Remote Desktop, i will check your computer for everything! I mean i will go page by page and check it for you.

 

[pparks1]

If he is not running the Pro, enterprise, business or ultimate versions of WIndows 7 or XP Pro..he likely doesn't have Remote Desktop.

To set the speeds under Windows 7,
Start
Control panel
View Network Status and Tasks
Click Change Adapter Settings
Right click and Properties on your connection
Click on Configure
Click on Advanced
Look for Link speed and duplex.

 

[shiphen]

Sorry now I understand. Yes I have now set the Windows7 network adapter back to auto. But no change (although to be fair I havent re-booted the machine yet)

 

[pparks1]

How are you accessing the files on the other computer? is it a mapped drive, are you going to a UNC path, etc?

 

[RedBirdDad]

Sorry now I understand. Yes I have now set the Windows7 network adapter back to auto. But no change (although to be fair I havent re-booted the machine yet)

I've seen cases where the ethernet ports don't autodetect properly. When I looked at your setup again I saw both were full duplex but one was auto and one manual. I missed seeing they were both 100/Full so this probably won't make a difference unless the router's ethernet switch isn't detecting the speeds/duplex properly.

 

[acurasd]

I just use msn messenger live to do it.

 

[shiphen]

Wait a minute - it has suddenly sped up. "3.2GBytes" (!!)
Well that is MUCH better - although still hardly 10GB, but never mind.

Okay now it's gone 2AM here in the UK I *MUST* get some sleep now.
But MANY thanks so much for all your help good people...
G'night

Ship

 

[pparks1]

Wait a minute - it has suddenly sped up. "3.2GBytes" (!!)
Well that is MUCH better - although still hardly 10GB, but never mind.

I'm pretty sure that the poster means Megabytes...not Gigabytes. So, you are getting about 3 megabytes a second rather than 10 megabytes a second. I was just clarifying so that a newcomer doesn't come into this thread and think we are idiots.

Lots of things can contribute to that, like a computer that is busy doing something else (defrag, virus scan, etc). Or it can be a speed negotiation issue with the router.

I'd sleep on it overnight and come back tomorrow and see what happens.

 

[RedBirdDad]

Wait a minute - it has suddenly sped up. "3.2GBytes" (!!)
Well that is MUCH better - although still hardly 10GB, but never mind.

Okay now it's gone 2AM here in the UK I *MUST* get some sleep now.
But MANY thanks so much for all your help good people...
G'night

Ship

Cool Beans! Get a good nights sleep!

BTW: You won't get 10GB speed. That's 80Mbps and the Windows file copy can't push data that fast.

 

[pparks1]

BTW: You won't get 10GB speed. That's 80Mbps and the Windows file copy can't push data that fast.

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.

 

[RedBirdDad]

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.

 

[surfasb]

BTW: You won't get 10GB speed. That's 80Mbps and the Windows file copy can't push data that fast.

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 megabytes[sic] per second = 12,500,000 bytes per second. Or around 12 megabytes per second

1000 megabytes[sic] 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.

Even this guy can't even get it right. LOL. We should just stop trying to correct each other.....

 

[Zidane24]

BTW: You won't get 10GB speed. That's 80Mbps and the Windows file copy can't push data that fast.

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 megabytes[sic] per second = 12,500,000 bytes per second. Or around 12 megabytes per second

1000 megabytes[sic] 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.

Even this guy can't even get it right. LOL. We should just stop trying to correct each other.....

Seeing as you have made a comment to suggest this...can you post why you feel pparks comment is incorrect and also post the correct method in the process?

 

[acurasd]

Uh oh... do i see a sarah palin and hilary clinton debate?

 

[Zidane24]

Uh oh... do i see a sarah palin and hilary clinton debate?

I fail to see the comparison...

I think that if someone provides information about a subject and that information may be incorrect (as suspected by another user). The user belaying suspicion should at least provide the correct information to rectify the misconception

 

[acurasd]

Uh oh... do i see a sarah palin and hilary clinton debate?

I fail to see the comparison...

I think that if someone provides information about a subject and that information may be incorrect (as suspected by another user). The user belaying suspicion should at least provide the correct information to rectify the misconception

Nawww I see what you mean man.....

If your going to stick your foot in your mouth; make sure you got something to back it up with.

 

[zzz2496]

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

 

[pparks1]

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.