Windows Server 2008 copies 45 Times Faster Than '03

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

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Opera recognized as best mobile browser on Windows Mobile

Next Story

Top 10 worst IT disasters of all time

26 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

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.

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.

That states SMB 2.0 is already in Vista, so that makes the changes to the tcp/ip stack in 2008 more interesting, as many seem to think network file transfer in Vista is slower than XP.

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.

zong said,
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.

The math doesn't add up then, the original blog stated 567813 Bytes/sec,

keeping it very basic -

567813 (b)*60 (s)*60 (m) *6 (h) / 1024 (k) / 1024 (m) / 1024 (for gig) = 11.42 gig.

if it was more than ten thousand gig it would have had to have transferred a hell of a lot faster than 567813 Bytes/sec to shift ten thousand gig in under six hours.

zong said,
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.

Like yakumo said... The transfer rate does not add up with what you are suggesting. Better think twice before replying next time

I could download that amount using bittorrent in around the same amount of time using my 8meg DLS connection!!

What is this all about?

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.

Andre said,
So you can copy 20 TB within 20 minutes back and forth?

10.8GB * 2 = 21.6GB to me, how you got 20TB is magical
ah i see, the guy made a mistake, its 10.8TB... correct the article someone

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.

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?

I was just going to comment the same thing 10 GB at most should take 60 minutes, this sounds bogus.... 5 hours... thats like 156K per second.... DSL is faster then that over 2000 miles of internet.

phiberoptik said,
I was just going to comment the same thing 10 GB at most should take 60 minutes, this sounds bogus.... 5 hours... thats like 156K per second.... DSL is faster then that over 2000 miles of internet.

who ever said it was one file .. and who said it was the transfer speed holding them back. effecientcy of the cpu, ram, hdd access in the OS ... they all account for something.

Vista got prioritized I/O .. 2k8 can do the same. this alone could save alot of time...

surely conditions are the same .. else they wouldn't be shouting it about..

ps. this is age old news. nummerous test have been done .. this is confirmed

MMaster23 said,
who ever said it was one file .. and who said it was the transfer speed holding them back. effecientcy of the cpu, ram, hdd access in the OS ... they all account for something.

From the source blog "a collection of 10 VirtualEarth Stitch files"

kev_gordon said,
PLEASE can they apply whatever they did to Vista then!

agreed the way to change peoples minds about vista is to add features like this through updates

Chicane-UK said,
Agreed.

Hell, Microsoft designed Windows File Sharing - clearly they've done something wrong on Server 2003 and need to patch it up pronto.

Obviously neither of you know what your talking about.

Chicane-UK said,
Agreed.

Hell, Microsoft designed Windows File Sharing - clearly they've done something wrong on Server 2003 and need to patch it up pronto.

please do your research before shouting .. these speeds were achieved due to an brand new protocol (SMB v2). You already have this in a slimmed down version in Vista.

There will be no patch! Upgrade them servers .. worth it... 2k8 rocks

MMaster23 said,
2k8 rocks

Maybe if they didn't decide to stop supporting my hardware, it would be an option, obvesily a quad processor server is WAY too crap for now-a-day uses...