locked
What is your file transfer speed? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I have tried 4 different ways to test the speed for either copying or uploading files to the server. They are as follows: USB 2.0 to DE, SATA to DE, EIDE to DE and Ethernet to DE. All speeds are the same for me. Around 1MB/Sec. To Put this in context, a 350 Meg file in 6-7 minutes. A movie at 750 in 12 min.

    Can anyone else comment if they have had any luck getting faster speeds. For the record, I am running a P3 with 512Meg of Ram.

    Wednesday, March 7, 2007 11:46 PM

Answers

  • On a 100 Mbit network, I see transfer rates as high as 6-7 MB/s. Average is around 3 MB/s. I don't consider those numbers horrible. They could be somewhat  better, but they're fast enough for me.
    Thursday, March 8, 2007 3:44 AM
    Moderator
  • I started a new thread on this, but i thought I would add it to this one as it relates to transfer speed.

    Today I purchased a brand new 2.8gig Intel Dual Core with 1 Gig of DDR memory. With all the problems that I had with my first trial server, a P3 866 with 512Ram, I decided to spend the money and start fresh.

    All of the problems that I have reported in my other threads have now dissapeared (so far). I have a single 500Gig Sata drive connected directly to the motherboard. It recognized it on install and had no installation problems.

    Everything has been smooth, and my transfer speeds via ethernet on my first upload of data was at 69% Network Utilization. 7 Gig in 16 minutes.

    It seems that your network is only as good as your weakest link, and my last computer was the weakest.

    Dawg.

    Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:43 PM

All replies

  • On a 100 Mbit network, I see transfer rates as high as 6-7 MB/s. Average is around 3 MB/s. I don't consider those numbers horrible. They could be somewhat  better, but they're fast enough for me.
    Thursday, March 8, 2007 3:44 AM
    Moderator
  • I'm seeing 85 Mbps average on a 100 Mbps network during backups.  Server is a 2GHz P4 with 512 MB.  I don't think that it could be much better for this configuration.
    Thursday, March 8, 2007 5:12 AM
  • A 360Mb file here takes ~12-15seconds to upload to WHS.
    I have gigabit ethernet to the server, which is an old 1.16GHz AMD Athlon XP1800+ with 1Gb ram.
    Thursday, March 8, 2007 9:09 AM
  • I've got gigabit on my desktop and  server, but only see a  max of about 120megabits - my WHS is a 1GHz AMD Athlon with 768 Meg RAM. It may be because my Cat 5 cabling isn't cat5e, or it may be the cheap gigabit card I've put in the server!
    Thursday, March 8, 2007 9:19 AM
  • I'm using a very cheap gigabit card, ISTR it was only about £3!
    I did have to run cat6 cabling between my hub and the server before it would work properly though, this was done when I ran a Buffalo Terastation, so I don't know what effect lower cabling would have on the WHS.
    For me WHS is the culmination (so far!) of a lot of trial and error to get a fast server - I started with an NSLU2, then went to a Terastation, then built various linux servers, and now settled on WHS for simplicity's sake. :-)
    Thursday, March 8, 2007 9:27 AM
  • Regarding the OP, this seems very slow, you should be getting speeds about 4x faster than that.

    I get around 5-7MB/s using a crossover cable between my PC and the WHS.

    This is using PC's onboard gigabit port and server's onboard 100Mbps port, I'm gonna fit a cheap gigabit card in the server over the weekend and see what the speeds are like then.
    Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:29 PM
  • Well, I'm using a 1 Gbit/s network with standard pack size (1.5K - not jumbo at 9K) and I've been peeking at 40-50% network utilization  so that would be a transfer rate from 50 MB/s to 62,5 MB/s... pretty nice. I needed to move about 135 GB og TV recordings from my PC in the living room to the WHS. :-)
    Thursday, March 8, 2007 2:52 PM
  • Not sure what my speed actually was, but uploaded all my music, photos, videos etc last night onto the server (around 70GB). Stopped check the time after 7 hrs.

    Also noticed that the whole system ground to a halt, even on web browsing on one of the other PC's not even accessing the server.

    Will be interesting to see how it now runs to see if any better.\

    p.s. have 100MBit ethernet and using 3 IDE drives in server on a Athlon 1400+ CPU & 1GB ram

    Thursday, March 8, 2007 5:33 PM
  • I'm getting 5-8 MBps on 100Mbps ethernet. I have noticed dreadful speeds (like 100 kBps) when I'm copying files that used to be in XP's program files folder (I'm using Vista now). It seems like it must be a permissions issue, that it just takes Vista a lot of overhead to process the orphaned SID's or something on lots of small files. That's the only time I've seen significantly worse speed.

    I've read some people saying going to gigabit doesn't improve their speeds. I hope that's not the case for me, as I've just ordered gigabit replacements! I'm glad to read that several of you are getting pretty good gigabit speeds, on somewhat old hardware, too.

    Thursday, March 8, 2007 8:49 PM
  • I usually get 40% utilization on a 100Mbps network.  I'm still tinkering, though, but I haven't seen sustained speeds faster than that.  Server is running on a 600MHz P3, 640MB RAM and a single Seagate HDD.

    I'm going to be moving to gigabit Ethernet this summer, so I'll see how much of a difference that makes.

    Thursday, March 8, 2007 10:44 PM
  • It depends on the size of the file being transfered. If it is under about 800MB, I get >40MB/s. For larger files(and folders), the initial 500-800MB is VERY fast, but then seems to slowly die until it drops to well under 10MB/s. Running the server on ultra cheap Netgear Gigabit switch, along with an HP Mediavault and my main home pc running Vista Premium. For the most part I am VERY estatic, but as stated before, if I am in the middle of transfering LARGE files, the entire speed drops off considerably. GP
    Thursday, March 8, 2007 11:43 PM
  • I started a new thread on this, but i thought I would add it to this one as it relates to transfer speed.

    Today I purchased a brand new 2.8gig Intel Dual Core with 1 Gig of DDR memory. With all the problems that I had with my first trial server, a P3 866 with 512Ram, I decided to spend the money and start fresh.

    All of the problems that I have reported in my other threads have now dissapeared (so far). I have a single 500Gig Sata drive connected directly to the motherboard. It recognized it on install and had no installation problems.

    Everything has been smooth, and my transfer speeds via ethernet on my first upload of data was at 69% Network Utilization. 7 Gig in 16 minutes.

    It seems that your network is only as good as your weakest link, and my last computer was the weakest.

    Dawg.

    Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:43 PM
  • I'm seeing between 1 and 10 MBps between my Vista machine and the server. This is across a gigabit connection.
    Saturday, March 10, 2007 9:40 PM
  • Because of the way that Drive Extender functions your NIC is not going to be the bottleneck.  It's either going to be your processor or your disk I/O.  bring up the default view of perfmon.exe and you'll see what I mean.  during a transfer you'll notice the disk queue bump up (drive I/O is your bottleneck) or your processor pegged (CPU is the bottleneck). 

    Some people are seeing very respectable transfer rates but they're using lots of high bandwidth internal drives and a fast processor.  If you don't have both a fast processor and lots of drive bandwidth you might as well be using 10 megabit or 802.11b.

    Hopefully the efficiency of Drive Extender improves in future builds and files aren't bounced back and forth between drives as much.  That will definitely help throughput.

    Saturday, March 10, 2007 10:23 PM
  • Perhaps they could make DE wait until the transfer is complete before duplicating files? Just an idea.
    Saturday, March 10, 2007 10:38 PM
  • Perhaps they could make DE wait until the transfer is complete before duplicating files? Just an idea.
    or better yet, distribute writes of new files across all available drives...  There's lots of ways to make transfers faster and probably just as many (or more) reasons they haven't been implemented yet.  I think the best thing we can do now is just keep complaining about the sucky performance so it gets addressed.

     

    Saturday, March 10, 2007 11:21 PM
  • I am also getting very slow transfer rates.  I just contructed my server (AXP 1800+, 768mb, 120GB, 40GB, 250GB) and it took over an hour to copy 15GB to a shared folder.  I can copy that in way less time between two comps on the same network, even to my older comp that uses the same speed IDE drives as the server.Any ideas?
    Friday, April 6, 2007 4:17 PM
  • When my server was setup with WHS I got about 21MB/s uploading to server.  When I switched that machine back to a Naslite server I got 42 MB/s.  This is on a gig network uploading from a Vista machine.  Moved the WHS to a P3 machine and am now getting abt. 7 MB/s upload.
    Friday, April 6, 2007 4:43 PM

  • I'm on a gigbit network (using standard pack size, ~1500) and I get 70-80MB/s for the first 5-10 seconds of a transfer and then it drops down to around 45-50MB/s.  I'd like to try jumbo packets but for some reason when I use jumbo packets I can't connect to my routers setup page properly.

    This is transfering to the WHS server. Transfering from the WHS server is only around 30MB/s.

    Server: 
    Asus K8V-MX socket 754 (microAtx)
    CPU: AMD 64 3200++ (754)
    1 gig memory
    Intel Pro/1000 gt nic
    250 gig IDE maxtor hard drive

    Essentially my old HTPC. Smile

    Friday, April 6, 2007 9:35 PM
  • I just transfered about 1GB of data from 7 folders on my client to one of the shared folders on WHS and it only took about 4 minutes. The network utilization in Task Manager peaked at about 79% and averaged 45 - 55% of my 100Mbps connection.

    WHS is installed on PIII 667, 512MB ram, 160GB main HD and 3 x 40 GB HD's for data.
    Friday, April 6, 2007 10:08 PM
  • I transfered a single 1.1 GB file from my XP box to a shared folder on WHS. xfer speed was about 5MBps on my 100Mbps ethernet. network utilization was ~ 45% and it took nearly 4 minutes. transfering the same file from the WHS shared folder to my XP box started at ~ 6MBps and ended at ~ 8MBps. network util was at 68% and it took only 2.5 minutes.

     

    WHS is installed on an ASUS Terminator 1 VIA C3 800Mhz cpu, 512MB PC2100, internal 320GB IDE, internal 160GB SATA, onboard NIC.

    Saturday, April 7, 2007 2:32 AM
  •  Lliam wrote:

    I'm on a gigbit network (using standard pack size, ~1500) and I get 70-80MB/s for the first 5-10 seconds of a transfer and then it drops down to around 45-50MB/s. I'd like to try jumbo packets but for some reason when I use jumbo packets I can't connect to my routers setup page properly.


    Same problem, really fast transfers (50-60MB/s) for the initial 20 seconds then the speed drops down to about 1MB/s.

    I noticed that if you remove all the extra storage, leaving just the primary boot drive and it's data partition, the problem goes away.

    However, as soon as I add extra storage, IDE/SATA/USB2 etc the slow transfers return.


    Maybe WHS can be made to wait for a period of inactivity before it starts shifting data across to alternate disks.



    Friday, May 4, 2007 1:50 PM
  • I posted a similar topic in the Hardware forum, but since I'm seeing this thread, I'm wondering if we have something else wrong with our network settings and not WHS.  (for those using gig cards)

    I have 2 machines with gig cards connected to a gig switch.
    using iperf with the following parameters:

    iperf -s -u -w2m -i1   (on the server)
    iperf -c <above server ip>  -u -b400M -w2m -i1 -t60    (on the client)

    I get the following results with task manager showing that Network Utilization is only 12%

    [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
    [1880]  0.0- 1.0 sec  18.6 MBytes   156 Mbits/sec
    [1880]  1.0- 2.0 sec  19.2 MBytes   161 Mbits/sec
    ...

    If I swap the cards with 10/100 card and force 100 full on the switch, I get the following results with task manager showing that Network Utilization is 98%

    [ ID] Interval       Transfer     Bandwidth
    [1880]  0.0- 1.0 sec  11.4 MBytes  95.6 Mbits/sec
    [1880]  1.0- 2.0 sec  11.4 MBytes  95.6 Mbits/sec
    ...
    Friday, May 4, 2007 3:32 PM
  • Still getting sucky performance for transfer rates.  I can rip a dvd direct to the server from my Vista machine with speeds about 6.0 MB/s over a gig network with cat 6 cable.  But it works.  I can rip the same dvd to the hd on the Vista machine and then copy and paste and it won't complete.  It starts out abt 40MB/s and then slows then stops.  I don't think WHS can handle high speed transfers unless as someone mentioned you have the cpu and or i/o horsepower.  My server is just a p4 1.6 with a gig of ddr.

     

    I forgot to add the this that I transfered a 45gig file from a p3 naslite server to WHS with no problems.  Just that it tool abt 4 1/2 hours.  And the p3 had a on board 100m network interface.

    Friday, May 4, 2007 8:21 PM
  • Max I'm getting 7 MB on a 100MB network. Doesn't seem to matter what OS is running.
    Friday, May 4, 2007 9:25 PM
  • If you are getting 7MB (59 Mbit approx.) on 100Mbit network, I'd say you are getting good speed.
    Saturday, May 5, 2007 12:35 AM
  • I'm on a gigbit network (using standard pack size, ~1500) and I get 70-80MB/s for the first 5-10 seconds of a transfer and then it drops down to around 45-50MB/s. I'd like to try jumbo packets but for some reason when I use jumbo packets I can't connect to my routers setup page properly.


    Same problem, really fast transfers (50-60MB/s) for the initial 20 seconds then the speed drops down to about 1MB/s.

    I noticed that if you remove all the extra storage, leaving just the primary boot drive and it's data partition, the problem goes away.

    However, as soon as I add extra storage, IDE/SATA/USB2 etc the slow transfers return.


    Maybe WHS can be made to wait for a period of inactivity before it starts shifting data across to alternate disks.

     

     

    I think that is an excellent idea.

     

    Dawg.

    Saturday, May 5, 2007 1:53 PM
  • The Dawg Fadder:  I'm having the same problem.  It was fast at first with the intial drive and now it's very very slow.  I have folder duplication turned off , media sharing, and indexing.   HDTach benchmarks show that local access to my drives is plenty fast.   I have tried 2 different network cards and have gotten the latest bios and  chipset drivers for my old KT333 based ECS board.   I'm not sure what the deal is but it's frustrating  because  I think it has to be some weird WHS bug since I'm all these devices have proper  W2k3 support.
    Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:02 PM
  • I'm having the exact same issues. I'm running an old Sempron 2400+ on an old Via based KT333 board.   Did you find a solution to this issue?
    Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:14 PM
  • I'm getting between 20 and 50% throughput on network transfers over my 1Gbps LAN depending on the size of the files and how much other traffic is going on at the same time. Seeing speeds of upto 2.7MBps over my (theoretical) 24Mbps DSL connection.

     

    Running on a 2GB, 3GHz Pentium 4 - which is probably somewhat overkill for the application, but that was what I had available when I started tinkering with WHS.

    Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:47 PM
  • This is exactly what I see happening. I originally thought is was related to CPU and/or Drive speed, but after trying 3 different motherboards (ranging from Athlon 2000+ to a newish 3800+ X2), and 80GB ATA to 500GB SATA, I've given up. I'm trying to move a large collection of recorded TV and music (400GB). As soon as you add a second drive, performace on gigabit goes wonky. Starts pretty fast (30MB/s), drops to zero, goes back to 9MB/s, drops to zero, goes back up to 30MB/s, and on and on. Takes forever to move the files around. I can't figure out what is going on. The folder I'm moving to is not replicated, so I see it writing to just that disk. The newer disks should easily be able to keep up, but throughput still jumps up and down. It's incredimly frustrating.
    Wednesday, July 4, 2007 3:08 PM
  • I see around %10 utilization when copying from one computer to another on my gigE network. When doing a backup however the copies go at full gigE speed (took a little over an hour to copy 100+gb). I looked at perfmon and anytime a copy is in progess the disk queue jumps to %100, so that is obviously the bottle neck. Even if I do the copies on the server (using the shares still) the copies are still slow, though faster then from another computer on the network.

    100baseT speeds aren't bad but I shuffle large amounts of data around fairly often (using about 1tb out of 2tb on the server at the moment) so the speeds are annoying. I haven't had any streaming issues with audio, or SD and HD media so that works correctly at least. Read speeds seem fine, I can get around %50 utilization when doing a copy which is about what I expect.
    Wednesday, July 4, 2007 4:53 PM
  • Testing today the speed:

    (Uploading) I got 25 MB/sec form vista client to the WHS server share folder, that what I consider good.

    (Downloading)  I got 9 MB/sec from WHS server to vista client.

    My best.
    Wednesday, July 4, 2007 5:51 PM
  • I have used Perfmon on my WHS box to monitor the disk queue as I transfer a large (1GB recorded TV file from a Windows XP MCE box) file over my 1GB wired LAN. I notice that I gat about 45% network usage for a few seconds. Then the disk queue maxes out followed by the processor. Eventually they both come down.

     

    When I first connected my these PCs via a gigabit switch, I got susstained 330 - 450 MBits/sec transfer rate. Now it only goes this fast for a few seconds before grinding to a halt, then continueing at a much slower rate.

     

    How can I improve disk queue performance?

     

    Ben

     

    PS Could installing the uTorrent WHS plugin have caused a file transfer bottleneck? Its was not transferring any files while my transfer tests were taking place.

     

    Friday, October 12, 2007 7:06 PM
  • I Ran a test using Backup Exec to the Terrastation and was getting a network speed that peaks at 90 MB/S and then drops to 4-5 MB/S. With a backup to WHS the speed peaks at 10 MB/S and drops to 10 KP/s. Network Util. is around 1% on a 1 GB/S LAN.

     

    Just food for thought

     

    Phil

     

    Saturday, October 13, 2007 3:58 AM
  • Thanks tfieldho - now I know that I have a bottleneck in "disk queue" (at 100 all the time) - BTW I cant seem to load the SM Bus device driver for my motherboard - would this be related? WHS is installed on a P4 3.2Ghz and 1000mbt/80g Sata & 500g Sata2 HDD and only getting 10%?
    Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:05 AM
  • I realize that people hate using them, but this is one of those discussions that would be clarified if folks would use the binary prefixes when quantities are being reported in powers of 2. Bandwidth has traditionaly been correctly reported in powers of ten, so the SI prefixes are used correctly there.

     

    You can go to Google and type in "1 gibibyte per 4 minutes in bits per second" in the search box (no quotes) and Google Calculator will report back:

    (1 gibibyte) per (4 minutes) = 35 791 394.1 bits per second

    So you know that comes out to about 35.8 Mbps.

     

    You have to be careful, though, because Google doesn't take into account contextual things like bandwidth in order to determine how to interpret the possible misuse of SI prefixes. So if you enter "1 gigabyte per 4 minutes in bits per second" it will report back the same result. That's wrong. The correct result would be the result you get for "1e9 bytes per 4 minutes in bits per second" instead, which is

    (1e9 bytes) per (4 minutes) = 33 333 333.3 bits per second

     

    I'm just sayin'.

     

    Of course it's possible that people really *are* using the SI prefixes correctly in this conversation. In which case, never mind. But if you're relying on the Windows operating system to tell you when a file is 1 GB in size, you're getting bad information.

     

     

    Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:57 AM
  • John, don't hold your breath if you're expecting people to differentiate between powers of 10 and powers of 2 when they can barely keep Megabit vs Megabyte straight. Stick out tongue  For the record, I've always considered the base-10 numbers to be inflated marketese - the computer equivalent of labeling a reduced size package of cereal with "now 30 % more".

     

    I just received my RTM copy of WHS on Friday and will be performing some benchmarks once I get a couple of Terabytes (er sorry, Tebibytes Big Smile ) of data off of my RC1 system.  I'll post up results.

     

     

     

    Saturday, October 13, 2007 6:43 PM
  •  

    Oh thank GOD!  I thought I was just being stupeed (and maybe I am)!  I have masses of music, home video, software, etc. sitting on 4TB of disc space on a Windows 2003 server...but I really don't need all those extras so I thought I'd build myself a new toy box.  I built a new box (1333MHz FSB Core2Duo plus 4 1TB drives and one 250GB boot drive with 2GB of RAM) and tried moving data from an attached hard drive then over a gigabit network and it is slow slower slowest!  I'm used to being able to shift around 400MB+ without even thinking about it and now I have to plan my day and night around moving data.  I don't have any duplication turned on (yet) but I'm going to try turning off indexing and see if that helps a bit.

     

    As an experiment, I have not tried to see what happens when I move data back off of the box.  If that's fast, I'll be happ(ier). 

     

    One thing you'll also notice if you haven't tried this yet...I dropped 50,000 songs onto a holding folder on the WHS box and then went to move them into the shared Music folder.  It's actually moving them...must be part of the whole drive extender methodology...rather than doing anything clever like moving markers.  This really really sucks.  So, if you want to move stuff over, just move it to where you want it; or you'll be doing the move twice.

     

    Any more tips you all have, keep posting them.  I'm really bummed about all this "overhead".

     

    dougbert

    Sunday, December 2, 2007 4:02 AM
  • Yeah, what's the deal here, something is broken.  I see a spike of initial speed, then it slows way down when transferring large files to WHS.

     

    I've seen this exact symptom before - on my old non-WHS server the "Enable write caching on disk" policy didn't "stick" on the IDE disks.  So this meant I had to remember to go turn it back on after a reboot.  Anyway, data came in faster over GigE than it could write to the HD's, so it would write real fast for a few seconds, then it will slow way, way down.  Turning back on write caching on the disks fixed the problem.

     

    The exact same thing is happening now to WHS, but unfortunately I've checked and write caching is enabled on all my disks.  Is something ignoring that?  Whatever it is - somethings broken and I haven't seen anything out of anybody from MS saying exactly what it is.

     

    Another annoying thing is when this happens my Vista client (source of the data being copied) goes all wonky and becomes unresponsive.  I have to hit ctrl-C to kill the xcopy, then like 5-10 seconds later if finally dies.

    Thursday, December 6, 2007 4:39 AM
  • Folks,

    Has anyone found a solution to this problem?

    I have the same issue. Gb LAN, transfer extremely fast during first few seconds then it suddenly slows down to less than 10MB/s.

    I have a single drive (1 TB), media sharing off.
    Thursday, March 6, 2008 4:26 AM
  • I'm seeing the same thing:

    I have the same issue. Gb LAN, transfer extremely fast during first few seconds then it suddenly slows down to less than 10MB/s.

     

    What I've noticed on my WHS machine is that Storage Balancing starts right before the slowdown. My assumption was that the transfer was being bottlenecked by the hard drive writes on the WHS due the balancing. I've got a 500 gb primary drive and a 120 gb secondary drive, so I'm considering just dropping that second hard drive for speed reasons.

     

    I'm not trying to "bash" on WHS since I think it has great potential, but this problem (along with the data corruption) needs to be addressed before we will see the transfer rates sustained. Perhaps we will see some tweaks to the Balancing Storage heuristics in the upcoming WHS updates.

    Thursday, March 6, 2008 5:27 PM
  • James,

    I have already done that. Removed all additional drives. I have just one drive now. No duplication, No media sharing. The same problem is observed. Don't know what else to try. My transfer starts off at 110 MB/s and goes like that for about 10 secs before dramatically dropping to less than 10MB/s.

     James C wrote:

     

    What I've noticed on my WHS machine is that Storage Balancing starts right before the slowdown. My assumption was that the transfer was being bottlenecked by the hard drive writes on the WHS due the balancing. I've got a 500 gb primary drive and a 120 gb secondary drive, so I'm considering just dropping that second hard drive for speed reasons.

    Thursday, March 6, 2008 11:49 PM
  • Here is what my speeds look like.  Frustrating to say the least.

    http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d51/anastasis00/?action=view&current=netspeed.jpg
    Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:47 PM
  •  

    I got this speed today, drag'n drop from Vista to a shared folder on WHS

     

    http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/249/speedlj9.jpg

     

    I don't know what happened, because I've never seen speed like that before, but it stayed around 100MB all the time

    Sunday, June 1, 2008 6:39 PM
  • I have different experiences in file transfer depending on the operating system I'm using at the connected client, my test file is the Powerpack 1 RTM file (I noticed the problem by downloading from microsoft toVista ultimate 64 machine to the shared drive.  Downlod to the Vista Ultimate machine from the internet was fast, then when the machine did the copy to the shared drive is when it gave me a 7 minute (and took about 3 in reality) which started this investigation on my part).

     

    Vista Ultimate 64-bit:  Getting the file From the server is instantaneous.  Sending the file TO the server takes 7 minutes and some odd seconds.  Did this with a larger file (2XX megs ), and from WHS, I get 3.10Mbps.  Going to WHS, I get 56.6Kbps. 

     

    Vista Home Premium 32-bit:  To and From the server is instantaneous.

     

    XP Media Center Edition:  To and From the server is instantantaneous.

     

     

    I haven't done this with a large file yet, but obviously Vista Ultimate 64 is having some issues.  I am using the latest drivers for an NForce 590 athlon mainboard, including on-board NIC.  This machine previously had XP Pro, and no issues with transfer rates from this machine, so it is likely not hardware.  I won't dismiss a 64-bit driver problem though!

     

    Any thoughts?

     

     

    Edit:  Oh, I've also done this same transfer from the Vista ultimate 64-bit machine to both other machines (XP MC, and Vista HP-32) and transfers were instantaneous.  IT only bogs down when I send files to the WHC.  It still happens with the RTM Powerpack 1 installed.

    Friday, July 25, 2008 5:22 PM
  • Okay, fixed my transfer from vista 64 to WHS at 56 kbps! Smile  I'm so happy!

     

    My problem was I was using Nvidia's "firstpacket" and for some reason, it was not giving any priority to my transfers to WHS.  I turned it off, and BAM, I'm up to 23 mbps! /whew

     

    Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:18 PM
  • From the Australian forum ( boy this issue is everywhere ), some people have tried using Winzip to split the files into 1 gig size, and found it faster.


    Ben
    Sunday, July 27, 2008 10:57 PM