300MB transfer rate and having a laugh WITH Redfox 1

[DQ]

@RedFox 1

Hey RF1. In a thread some time back you mentioned that the system was not invented that would transfer at 200MB (that being MegaBytes NOT megabits). I took that to mean a PC, in particular a Windows one. And it's true Windows used to be horrific with high speed transfers.

BUT!

Not anymore.

Check this out. And yes that is about 300MB, meaning 2.4gb (gigabits). I was a bit shocked myself but there you have it. Would have never guessed windows was capable given it's history.

 

[RedFox 1]

@RedFox 1

Hey RF1. In a thread some time back you mentioned that the system was not invented that would transfer at 200MB (that being MegaBytes NOT megabits). I took that to mean a PC, in particular a Windows one. And it's true Windows used to be horrific with high speed transfers.

BUT!

Not anymore.

Check this out. And yes that is about 300MB, meaning 2.4gb (gigabits). I was a bit shocked myself but there you have it. Would have never guessed windows was capable given it's history.

Hey DQ,.
It usually transfers at those speeds when you have a new 4.0 PCIe SSD, like a Samsung 980. 1TB, but also need a CPU that will accommodate that speed. Like the new AMD 5900X, or the new Intel 11 series CPUs, The throughput on those is amazing. Excellent stuff DQ.

 

[DQ]

Hey DQ,.
It usually transfers at those speeds when you have a new 4.0 PCIe SSD, like a Samsung 980. 1TB, but also need a CPU that will accommodate that speed. Like the new AMD 5900X, or the new Intel 11 series CPUs, The throughput on those is amazing. Excellent stuff DQ.

That transfer I showed was between 2 PC's across ethernet (moving from a PCIE3 SSD to a sata mechanical HD). Now granted it was 2.5GB ethernet but I know as recently as WIn7 days you were hard pressed to get a PC to move anywhere close to 1gb. And that's really why I remarked about it.

 

[RedFox 1]

That transfer I showed was between 2 PC's across ethernet (moving from a PCIE3 SSD to a sata mechanical HD). Now granted it was 2.5GB ethernet but I know as recently as WIn7 days you were hard pressed to get a PC to move anywhere close to 1gb. And that's really why I remarked about it.

Excellent DQ. But you failed to tell me until this post that you had a 2.5GB ethernet connection

 

[DQ]

Excellent DQ. But you failed to tell me until this post that you had a 2.5GB ethernet connection

Sorry I thought it would be an assumption if I was transferring at 2.4. But granted I am bad at making those so my apologies.

 

[RedFox 1]

Sorry I thought it would be an assumption if I was transferring at 2.4. But granted I am bad at making those so my apologies.

No apologies needed my friend.

 

[Tanquen]

I recently set up a 10 gigabit network and it's pretty nice for PC backups and copying UHD ISOs to and from the NAS at 900MB/s or more. Sometimes the windows copying pop up will just sit there stuck on calculating. It only happens every once in a while and it seems like it's actually copying the file while it seems to be stuck.

 

[DQ]

I recently set up a 10 gigabit network and it's pretty nice for PC backups and copying UHD ISOs to and from the NAS at 900MB/s or more. Sometimes the windows copying pop up will just sit there stuck on calculating. It only happens every once in a while and it seems like it's actually copying the file while it seems to be stuck.

Most of my network is 1gb but I have a small part of it that is 2.5gb due to the large transfers. I was surprised Windows would hang with the full speed because back in the day Windows would struggle mightily with just 1gb. It does seem to help a good bit to use jumbo frames though. To my NAS I can get just about the 2.5gb when writing to a single drive but if I hit the RAID 5 it of course slows to about half that and that's just RAID 5 as the writes take a bit of work to do. But overall everything works well. I say that because only in the last few weeks did I add the NAS. The PC RAID I was using turned into a hazard.

 

[Tanquen]

I never thought of it as Windows having an issue with file transfers as much as it was the CPUs and the hard drives and the hard drive controllers if they were software based and had cache and so on and so forth. Most contemporary computers have so much extra CPU power and SSDs it's just not an issue to saturate a 1 gigabit network. Kind of like how the new synology SD1821+ has a fast enough CPU and/or raid controller that RAID5 writes can pretty much saturate my 10 GB network and some of the RAID calculators show that you should only get single drive performance on writes and multiple drive performance on reads but the hardware is fast enough now that that's not necessarily the case on writes anymore.

 

[DQ]

I never thought of it as Windows having an issue with file transfers as much as it was the CPUs and the hard drives and the hard drive controllers if they were software based and had cache and so on and so forth. Most contemporary computers have so much extra CPU power and SSDs it's just not an issue to saturate a 1 gigabit network. Kind of like how the new synology SD1821+ has a fast enough CPU and/or raid controller that RAID5 writes can pretty much saturate my 10 GB network and some of the RAID calculators show that you should only get single drive performance on writes and multiple drive performance on reads but the hardware is fast enough now that that's not necessarily the case on writes anymore.

That's the case now but back in the day Windows tanked on large file transfers. It did not efficiently use it's own resources as it handles pretty well now. But we are talking pre-64bit times when 1gb was fairly new. But back then moving really large files was the exception and not the norm where today that is an everyday event. Windows itself, drivers, and as you mentioned, hardware has come a long way since those days.