[NTLUG:Discuss] File transfer speeds

[Courtney Grimland]

Well, let me add some more info about the 'test' I did to come up with
those numbers.  The switch is a TRENDnet TE100-S55E 10/100 5-port
*switch* (not a hub).  The wires are CAT5e that I terminated myself (the
cables in question are about 6ft long each).  The windows box has 384MB
RAM (256+128...I know it's an odd number), with nothing but systray and
explorer running (I'm very anal about useless processes running!).  The
Linux box has 320MB of RAM (256+64).  The revealing thing is that the
file transfer was via WinSCP to the sshd daemon on the Linux box.  I
realize there is overhead for the encryption/decryption, but still, the
500Kb/s seemed rather poor.  There was no other traffic on the network
at the time of the 'test'.  I don't have a FTP server set up on the
Linux box, but I'll try that or maybe the other suggestions I read on
this thread.

Thanks for the input everyone.

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:28:06 -0500 (CDT)
Bug Hunter <bughuntr at one.ctelcom.net> wrote:

> 
>  oops! I read the 500Kbps wrong.  If he is only getting 50,000 bytes
>  per
> second, then that is poor even for a 10BaseT, which will run at
> 500,000 Bytes per second on a loaded network.
> 
>  That performance is so poor that it sounds like really bad wires or a
> Microsoft machine. :)
> 
>   Seriously, transceivers on network cards, or very bad cables have
>   caused
> this in the past.  Sometimes it is a windows machine running with too
> many processes and too little ram.
> 
> bug


-- 
Nuclear weapons will wipe out all life on earth, if used properly.