Neowin.net - Windows Server 2008 copies 45 Times Faster Than '03

Windows Server 2008 copies 45 Times Faster Than '03

Posted by Steven Parker on 23 November 2007 - 12:02 · 26 comments & 15639 views

It's not unheard of for some of the earliest adopters of Microsoft's Vista this year to compare the experience to swimming in wet cement -- slow and not very pretty.

But word is filtering out of the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant that indicates its new server could be considerably better. Ward Ralston at the Windows Server Division Weblog reports that "our MSN group who is dogfooding Windows Server 200 RC0" has achieved the kind of testing results that might prompt a double-take. In a side-by-side between Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008, the group set out to transfer 10.8 GB of "VirtualEarth Stitch files" from one server to another, and back again.

On Windows Server 2003, the data took five hours, 40 minutes and 30 seconds to transfer once, and more than six hours to transfer back again.

On Windows Server 2008, the same data took seven minutes and 45 seconds to transfer one way, and eight minutes and 10 seconds to transfer back. The Microsoft people spare you the task of doing all that math: "The improvement observed was ~45 times faster over windows 2003."

If the numbers are consistent and no other glitches come up (this software has been in beta for a few years now), it could prove compelling when it is launched - - an event now slated for the first quarter of next year.

News source: CRN

Hide additional information

About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline

Total votes: 1

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Advertisement

(4 replies) #1 Posted by seta-san on 23 Nov 2007 - 12:10: if they got 48x over 2003 i would call that a glitch and demand that they fix my 2003

#2 Posted by DKAngel on 23 Nov 2007 - 12:26: more thike the rewrote the network stack so get over it your server is old

(1 reply) #3 Posted by kev_gordon on 23 Nov 2007 - 12:27: PLEASE can they apply whatever they did to Vista then!

(3 replies) #4 Posted by fergiej on 23 Nov 2007 - 12:49: Something is very wrong if 10GB of data took over 6 hours to copy. I am regularly moving 20-30GB files around on my network and these files average @ 40 minutes. This is without a server. I am basically moving either between 2 Vista machines or a Vista machine and a NAS. Something in this test was either very screwed or skewed. 10Gb is just not that much data these days. What did they have the 03 box on? tbase10?

#5 Posted by yakumo on 23 Nov 2007 - 13:28: Bogus article beyond belief. Woefully lacking in detail.

Transfer from one server to another over what system (technology) and bandwidth rating?, what was the location of the two systems?

did they just forget it was being cached somewhere by some external system?
did they just not realise something else was abusing 99% of the bandwidth during the first test?
hell, did they build a totally clean system from the start, and just forget that with the 2003 system
they'd left the indexing service on and it was scanning throughout the initial test. (jk)

Edit: whoops, made the mistake of readind the CRN source link instead of the Windows Server Division Weblog

Quote - "Windows Server Division Weblog"
a. In windows 2003, from TK2 to BLU, it took 5 hours, 40 minutes and 13 seconds. Transfer rate observed was 567813 Bytes/sec. From BLU to TK2, it took 6 hours, 6 minutes and 26 seconds. Transfer rate observed was 527182 Bytes/sec.

b. In LH RC0 build, from TK2 to BLU, it took 7 minutes and 45 seconds, Transfer rate observed was 25062249 Bytes/sec. From BLU to TK2, it was 8 minutes and 10 seconds, Transfer rate observed was 23712912 Bytes/sec

still makes you wonder what was really going on with the first test, there should have been reruns, that would also have discovered if they'd forgotten a transparent cache.

Last edited by yakumo on 23 Nov 2007 - 14:19

(2 replies) #6 Posted by WAR-DOG on 23 Nov 2007 - 14:40: WTF??? 5 hours?? I copy stuff double the size what they copied every day in 20 minuts with 2003 to XP and from XP to 2003.

#7 Posted by The Cub on 23 Nov 2007 - 15:16: I could download that amount using bittorrent in around the same amount of time using my 8meg DLS connection!!

What is this all about?

(2 replies) #8 Posted by zong on 23 Nov 2007 - 15:40: They copied 10,793 (more than ten THOUSAND) gigs between two datacenters. MS blog has decimal dot as thousand separator, and an extremely intelligent blogger at CRN made 10.8 GB out of it, without thinking twice. That's the whole story.

#9 Posted by Jugalator on 23 Nov 2007 - 17:15: So, what was Server 2003 doing so horribly wrong in their test?

(1 reply) #10 Posted by coolvi on 23 Nov 2007 - 17:59: 45 times sounds about right??

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/25/win...ewed/page8.html

Windows Server 2008 and Windows Vista uses SMB 2.0 vs. 1.0 that's been used in all previous version of Windows. The charts tell you all the story, and it's just not another marketing scam.

#11 Posted by toadeater on 24 Nov 2007 - 03:56: I'm sure it's improved. But that claim is 47x times inflated.

#12 Posted by chilliadus on 24 Nov 2007 - 07:24: In my experience this happens when you have tons of tons of small files, e.g., 20,000 of 512 bytes files. If you copy only a few large or huge files (e.g., one double-layer DVD VOB files) from one PC to another), that difference would disappear, or become negligible.

#13 Posted by patseguin on 26 Nov 2007 - 14:00: I'm not sure why I always see comments about Vista like that. I'm a Mac user, but I do use Vista via BootCamp and I find it very pretty and it's really damn fast.

[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Scroll to the Top