Speed file transfer over local network fast ethernet [resolved]

[Gussman]

@Bm4n:

It's 100Mbps, don't confuse bits with Bytes, the transfer will be around 10MB/s. You need the entire network to be gigabit to get the speed you want.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Right, I messed up, where it says MB it should be Mb. Okay, so I'm getting transfers of 80Mbps... so I'm still missing 20Mbps somewhere XD

@juanjojjjjjj:

I had the same problem and I solved it by putting a switch where I connected the 2 PCs and the server and this connected to the router.
I already have gigabit network between the 2 PCs and the server regardless of the router's wifi connection.
Regards

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

Okay, thanks, that was the option I was considering to leave out the 100T switch from the router.

@packosoft:

a sample of a copy from PC to PC on a gigabit network

huh... I see a gigabit switch in the distance... haha

Thanks to everyone.

[Gussman]

By the way, when testing with different cables, I realized that I had cat5 cables; I put two cat5e cables and it improved by a measly 0.3 MBps XDD

And another strange detail, if I transfer data from the "mule" computer to the main one, I get ~10Mbps, but if I transfer data from the main one to the "mule", it stays at ~6Mbps how is this possible??

And finally, if I put a gigabit switch between the two PCs, does the type of the rest of the network not matter for communication between them? That is, between them, the communication would be 1 Gbps regardless of whether there are other fast ethernet elements in the network??

Thanks again for the answers.

Edit:

I edit to comment that I have tried connecting another computer (a laptop, also with a gigabit network adapter) to the same switch to check the data transfer with the "mule" computer and I get the same results: if I upload to the "mule" 6Mbps, if I download from the "mule", 10 Mbps.

[Bm4n]

From point A to point B it has to be gigabit, adapters, cables and switch; that the switch makes other connections at a lower speed, to the router for example, does not affect.

Sent from my iPad with Tapatalk HD

[Gussman]

@Bm4n:

From point A to point B it has to be gigabit, adapters, cables and switch; that the switch makes other links at a lower speed, to the router for example, does not affect.

Sent from my iPad with Tapatalk HD

Ok, thanks for the answer

[cobito]

@Gussman:

By the way, while testing with different cables, I realized I had cat5 cables; I put two cat5e cables and it improved by a measly 0.3 MBps XDD
.

Links are not negotiated at any speed (as happens for example with xDSL). The speed steps are very abrupt: 10, 100, 1000 mbps, but there are no intermediate steps. The difference in speeds can occur because the error correction in a bad cable is greater and that consumes bandwidth.

@Gussman:

And another strange detail, if I transfer data from the "mule" computer to the main one, I get ~10Mbps, but if I transfer data from the main one to the "mule", it stays at ~6Mbps how is that possible??

That depends on the hardware and the operating system of the server. Writing to disk always consumes more CPU than reading. If you have the petaete computer full of things, it's possible that the system doesn't have enough CPU cycles available to use all the available bandwidth. This can occur even if the CPU is not at 100%.

@Gussman:

And finally, if I put a gigabit switch between both PCs, doesn't the type of the rest of the network matter for communication between them? That is, between them the communication would be 1 Gbps regardless of whether there are other fast ethernet elements in the network??

That's not a problem.

@Gussman:

Edit:

I edit to comment that I have tried connecting another computer (a laptop, also with gigabit network adapter) to the same switch to check the data transfer with the "mule" computer and I get the same results: if I upload to the "mule" 6Mbps, if I download from the "mule", 10 Mbps.

Well, that's it, CPU limitation. Close emule and all the programs you have open and try again.

[Gussman]

@cobito:

That depends on the server's hardware and operating system. Writing to disk always consumes more CPU than reading. If you have the computer full of things, it's possible that the system doesn't have enough CPU cycles available to use all the available bandwidth. This can happen even if the CPU is not at 100%.

Well, that's it, CPU limitation. Close emule and all the programs you have open and try again.

I don't think it's going to be that... testing with the computer just started, with nothing in the background, and you get barely a few 0.3MBps more, and the micro doesn't get very stressed with the task... barely 16%, it's a P4 at 3GHz (a prescott, 1 core 2 threads) with 2GB DDR2 667 ram.

I think the thing is going to be in the OS, it has XP pro SP3 x86 installed, while the others are win7 ultimate x64. I'm going to try to upgrade to win7, to see how it goes.

Thanks for the response

Edit:

joe, I don't understand it, I'm passing an iso of win7 to the "mule" and now it lets me write at 11 MBps XDD this computer is a weirdo XD

Edit2: jeez, I'm a dope... the bandwidth I was missing is the one that was consuming the emule itself, I have it uploading at about 4MBps... I must be a dope XDDD

Excuse the thread, everything is clear, thanks anyway for all the responses.

[packosoft]

@Gussman:

jue… veo un switch gigabit en lontananza... jaja

Gracias a todos.

algo asi

Respecto a la perdida, en condiciones optimas la perdida de rendimiento por control de errores, protocolos, cabeceras y demás es de alrededor del 20%, asi que imagina con mal cableado, interferencias y demas…

[incrediboy]

@packosoft:

something like this

Regarding the loss, under optimal conditions the performance loss due to error control, protocols, headers and so on is around 20%, so imagine with bad wiring, interference and so on…

156 megabytes? that's more than gigabit ethernet... what do you have installed there packo? ¬¬

[packosoft]

@incrediboy:

156 megabytes? that's more than gigabit ethernet… what do you have installed there packo? ¬¬

link aggregation (http://www.techopedia.com/definition/24969/link-aggregation-lag) is called the joke

because the other joke is too expensive yet

[cobito]

I may be saying something very silly, but I don't understand why a local link at 2 Gbps is strange and why one at 10 Gbps should be so expensive when DOCSIS 3.1, which is the standard followed in residential cable-modem connections, can transmit at 10 Gbps and soon the first modems capable of synchronizing at 5Gbps will appear (it is supposed to be a cheap technology given the scope of use).

[Gussman]

@packosoft:

because the other joke is too expensive yet

jeez... with that bandwidth the bottleneck will be the hard drive, haha. If the theoretical limit of a sata 3 is 6 Gbps, assuming it reaches it, there would still be about 4Gbps left for whatever you want.. damn...

[Mystique]

@Gussman:

Fri… with that bandwidth the bottleneck will be the hard drive, lol. If the theoretical limit of a sata 3 is 6 Gbps, assuming it reaches it, there would still be about 4Gbps left for whatever you want.. damn...

Do you think packo only has one drive? What arrays the guy spends….

cobito, it is a bit silly. For now, docsis 3.0 is being used and 3.1 still has a while to go before it's "mainstream"