How long should file transfers take?

By ingeborgdot
Feb 26, 2010
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 4,264   +41

    Yes that's what its saying, it is also using bandwidth on the pci lanes, but again gigabit lan means nothing if the harddrives you're using cant move information at that speed
  2. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    The hdd I am using is a 64mb cache caviar green on one machine to caviar blacks on the other machine.
  3. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 4,264   +41

    You can go to toms hardware and look up the specs of your hdd's. There's no way you're going to get 1gb transfer rate with those drives. FAR FROM IT.
  4. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    What drives would it take to get that?
  5. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 4,264   +41

    It would take serveral hdds in raid 0 to get those type of speeds, and a stand alone raid card. Its not worth the 1k usd on hdd's for those kind of transfer rates. Why do you need transfer rates that fast anyway for a home server.
  6. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    A lot of big files.
  7. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 4,264   +41

    Its not possible to get 1gb transfer speeds unless you're using 7+ hdds with good rpm and an aftermarket raid controller. Its just not worth the money. I have read speeds of 800mb+ on my server but I have 10 hdd caviar black on a raid controller. It was a 700 dollar investment my brothers and I made together.
  8. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    I am not looking to get 1gb but maybe 60-90MB/s if I can get lucky. I like speed baby.
  9. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 4,264   +41

    your caviar green hdd's are your issue. They dont perform as well as the black, key word "green," using less power but at a sacrifice of performance.
  10. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    But from every review I have read they are not much of an issue. The difference between them in general is very little unless you can find me some info that disputes that.
  11. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 4,264   +41

     
  12. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    This is what I bought. The Intel EXPI9301CT 10/ 100/ 1000Mbps PCI-Express Gigabit CT Desktop Adapter. I have this nic card and it sure made a difference. The one nice thing it did was find that I had a bad cable. I never found that with anything else I had. With the new nic I got an extra 200Mbps and when it found the bad cable it gave me another 100Mbps. I just want to know if anyone has this card and how to tweak it. Man are there a lot of settings. I got two of them. One for each computer on the net. How does the master/slave work. There is also teaming. How do I use it and should I? If anyone has perfected any of these settings please help me out. Thanks.
  13. tipstir

    tipstir TS Ambassador Posts: 4,578   +76

    Gig NIC on PCI-E is faster than Gig PCI. Now I have both, and to me both average the same speed. I transfer huge gig files back and forth over the network. Wireless Router under the wired ports has Realtek Gig controller with 832KB packet buffer. It's really quick. That goes into Gig 8-port switch and all Gig nodes have their own dedicated line. Goal is to reduce loss and bottleneck. CAT 5e is use there 350MHz CAT 6 would be 500MHz but no need for such cabling. Right now I am in the process to migrate data from old P4 to Quad-Core and dedicate larger HDD for each task of data required. I had about 200GB of data over the Gig network took about 7.30 Hrs according to Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit PCI-E Gig set to 1000 which the data is on PCI Gig set to 1.0GB running Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit and 1GB of RAM. I know that the time reported was estimated. Actual transfer rate was quicker. I did this when the network wasn't being used.
  14. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    Well, I finally got a chance to put another computer on the other end of the line that was having problems and I find out I don't have to change my line. It was a whopping 89-91 MB/s to this other computer. I am wondering if the problem could be the computer itself or if it is that I am running vista and that computer had xp pro. The one I put in it's place had W7. Well, at least I don't need to drag new lines. Now I just need to try a computer with xp on it.
  15. tipstir

    tipstir TS Ambassador Posts: 4,578   +76

    Check the NIC adapters or onboard NiC they tend to go DOA when you really need them. Intel PCI-E Gig are faster they have extra buffers, still Realtek pretty quick also. 89-91 mbps not bad. Next time on the xp pro use teracopy http://www.codesector.com/teracopy.php free and see what you get in real-time transfers. Vista and 7 use additional memory to speed the transfers.
  16. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    Do you think running some cat6 would help a little? Just curious.
  17. tipstir

    tipstir TS Ambassador Posts: 4,578   +76

    No, unless you change out everything to CAT 6. I have everything CAT 5e and all systems except for 1 wireless laptop on 802.11N mini USB which is on XP Pro SP3, the others are on 802.11N or G running Windows 7 HOP 32-bit or 64-bit. on Gig. I usually transfer 300MB to and from. This should take less than 2 seconds over Gig to Gig connection from two different systems over 200FT from each other and done remote into one box. Check your cables, switches, ports, NIC adapters. These tend to fail or you might have ports that are duff. Instead of 1000mbps you get 100mbps. Terminate ends might not be made correctly in your cables if you got them from third-party. Have you ever used Qcheck for TCP testing? A free tool.
  18. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    Yes, I have used qcheck. What kinds of speeds do you get with it?
    All my cables tested out good with the tester I used.
     
  19. tipstir

    tipstir TS Ambassador Posts: 4,578   +76

    That varies. I have moved 150GB data files, and media last night from single core onto a new quad core system. Prior it was 7 hours. There was a problem with the onboard Gig NIC. That's fix now. Added some tweaks to netsh feature in 7 to offload the CPU to the NIC PU and some DMA tweaks. Now it only took less than 4 hours on Gig to Gig about a bit more 200 feet of CAT 5e cabling.
  20. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    Does Vista have those tweaks?
  21. tipstir

    tipstir TS Ambassador Posts: 4,578   +76

    Well yes.. start by doing this run as administrator cmd prompt.
    Type: netsh int tcp show global

    Now look at: TCP Chimney Offload (disable on Vista but set to Automatic on 7)
    offload enables Windows to offload all TCP processing for a connection to a network adapter.

    Type: netsh int tcp set global chimney=enabled (set for both Vista and 7)
    Reduces networking-related CPU overhead, enabling better overall system performance by freeing up CPU time for other tasks

    Under XP it was called Offload, pretty much the same. But you need to change these commands under CMD. (old dos prompt)

    Under 7 there is a feature not found in Vista. Direct Cache Access (DCA) More used on systems with Gig to Gig transfers: netsh int tcp set global dca=enabled Don't use it on wireless nor Vista though as it's not supported.

    Non DSL networks Domain and Cable the MTU should be 1500 to check to see if yours is set correctly.
    Type: netsh interface ipv4 show subinterface

    To change it to 1500
    Example I call my Gig connection (Gig Access)
    Type: netsh interface ipv4 set subinterface Gig Access mtu=1500 store=persistent

    If you have dual or quad core you might want to add this feature:
    Type netsh int tcp set global rss=enabled (by default is should be enabled)

    Also one more..
    Type: netsh int tcp set global congestionprovider=ctcp for Add-on congestion Control Provider

    The above can be done on wireless networkings also. Just make you follow the above. Everything could be put into a script and lauched as the admin to produce the same results.
  22. Annyyu22

    Annyyu22 Newcomer, in training

    hi

    5,,,,or longer
  23. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    Now, I am a little confused. The first one says to disable TCP chimney offload, then you say to enable it. Which should I do?????
  24. tipstir

    tipstir TS Ambassador Posts: 4,578   +76

    No by default in Vista it's disabled. So you would want to enable it. Thus offloading the CPU and place it NIC Adapter processor. Thus freeing up the lag. Windows 7 users should force to be enabled always.
  25. ingeborgdot

    ingeborgdot TechSpot Paladin Topic Starter Posts: 752

    Yeah, I was just writing to say I re read it and that's what I figured.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.