Fast copy software for internal network traffics

[NoUserName]

Fast copy software for internal network traffics

Urgently required

Hello

Urgently for business ... looking for the most fastest software for data copy or data transfer in internal network between computers in the same network

I've goggled and found TeraCopy and RichCopy to be the most fastest tools around

When I test both of them I've found it is maximum 9:10 MB/second ... which is really slow for our needs

Please advise for a tool free or paid that could be as fast as possible?

Note: lan is about 20 node ... and daily data traffics in between is about 150:200 GB/day ... Yes we do work in that volume in a daily base ... so please advise for a suitable one?

Also all computers running windows 7 and XP

[sc302 Veteran]

why so many switches. we showed 1 large one for 100, you just spent 180 for something that could have been had for 100, unless you need those switches in different areas....

onboard is just fine. buffer size I wouldn't worry too much about that, I would worry about if it supports jumbo frames and if the cards support jumbo frames (again useless if only one supports not the other, all have to support). Jumbo Frames could squeeze out some more bandwidth.

[NoUserName]

why so many switches.

It was not my decision to buy them but it is my other co-worker as he was in the mall while we were discussing it here.

we showed 1 large one for 100, you just spent 180 for something that could have been had for 100.

He has been advised by the guy in the mall to get them, and it was late to reach him I am afraid :( , but prices in local markets are not the same as newegg website but more cheap.

unless you need those switches in different areas....

No, all are in one place, so now shall I continue using these switches and bridging each two switches to become a bigger one or still 0ne with 16 ports is far better?

onboard is just fine.

Please I want to know if you mean it is the same performance as the performance of the pci cards or not?

buffer size I wouldn't worry too much about that?

Why? isn't not important?

I would worry about if it supports jumbo frames and if the cards support jumbo frames (again useless if only one supports not the other, all have to support). Jumbo Frames could squeeze out some more bandwidth.

Please I am still do not understand this Jumbo Frames thing correctly, please may you explain it more?

=> one last thing, regarding comparing brands, if I am comparing the same features for different brands, does it matter? or all are the same? cisco, d-link, tp-link?

Thanks a lot and too much appreciated.

[SirEvan]

intel gigabit nics are the best, make sure you enable jumbo frames if your switch supports it, it'll help out. I've gotten 100+MB/sec across my gig connection to my raid array

[sc302 Veteran]

No, all are in one place, so now shall I continue using these switches and bridging each two switches to become a bigger one or still 0ne with 16 ports is far better?

Lets start with this, transferring on a single switch would be faster. When you start daisy chaining (what you are doing by plugging one switch into another) you are creating a potential bottleneck. A good switch will transfer to each port a 1Gb/s, if you are transferring multiple gigs from switch1 to multiple gigs on switch 2 the link between switch one and switch two will be the bottleneck and your transfers will suffer and be cut in half. You loose the ability to transfer 1Gb/s to each port, and it becomes halfed or even less. This is why 1 switch is better.

Please I want to know if you mean it is the same performance as the performance of the pci cards or not?

I have not noticed any gain with going with a PCI nic when doing file transfers.

Why? isn't not important?

Well it is sort of important, but not really. You are doing copies, it would help more if you had a ton of devices making different requests. Your goal is to transfer data, not going to see much benefit with buffer size.

Please I am still do not understand this Jumbo Frames thing correctly, please may you explain it more?

Basically the largest transmit unit or MTU most devices and switches can transfer at is 1500. Anything above 1500 is considered a jumbo frame. Frames close less times per large file transfer when you use Jumbo Frames. You can get a bit more speed out of the line if you use Jumbo Frames. This may help a little: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/03/the-promise-and-peril-of-jumbo-frames.html

=> one last thing, regarding comparing brands, if I am comparing the same features for different brands, does it matter? or all are the same? cisco, d-link, tp-link?

Thanks a lot and too much appreciated.

You want to compare features of different switches, brands really don't matter much.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...

Please I am still do not understand this Jumbo Frames thing correctly, please may you explain it more?

...

Normally ethernet frames are 1500 bytes long, (That includes headers and such), jumbo frames allow you to increase the side of the frames, decreasing the amount of headers sent.

Both my gigabit switches support 9KB jumbo frames (so I can send around 9KB of data per header instead of around 1KB), my PC also supports it (but disabled by default) and my Mac makes no mention to whether it's supported or not.

Edit: After messing around with settings and testing it, all the devices on my network support jumbo frames, so my systems can now pass around 9KB of data in a single Ethernet frame. It seems faster, but I need to do actual testing.

[NoUserName]

Ok, I will try to get a 16 port one.

Please which model support jumpo frames ?

[NoUserName]

Please I would like to ask if using ftp will be any good to do the transfer after done the hardware upgrade to gigabit:

ftp server in the boxes I am copying from.

ftp client to the boxes I am copying to.

and does file zilla considered a good option or there is a better software?

[sc302 Veteran]

don't use ftp you will be just fine with windows transfer esp with jumbo frames...once the copy starts ftp would be near useless anyway. you won't gain much at all from ftp.

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16833129035

[SirEvan]

I don't want to come off like an ASS, but perhaps the OP needs to actually hire a network engineer. It sounds like you don't have a clue about this stuff, don't understand networking, OS's Protocols, etc. I'm all for people learning, but you don't understand the basics, if you really need this for a business, you should hire someone who knows this stuff to set things up for you to fulfill your business need.

[NoUserName]

don't use ftp you will be just fine with windows transfer esp with jumbo frames...once the copy starts ftp would be near useless anyway. you won't gain much at all from ftp.

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16833129035

Ok, thanks

Another point: I've found a Jumpo frame option in the network adapter setting from device manager for the motherboard gigabyte built-in network in the motherboard.

But for the one in the Dell OptiPlex GB620, I did not found and mention for the Jumpo Frame. so in such a case the network pci card we had may include this option or not?

I don't want to come off like an ASS, but perhaps the OP needs to actually hire a network engineer. It sounds like you don't have a clue about this stuff, don't understand networking, OS's Protocols, etc. I'm all for people learning, but you don't understand the basics, if you really need this for a business, you should hire someone who knows this stuff to set things up for you to fulfill your business need.

You are right about us, but wee found it a bit expensive to hire an engineer so we are do it ourselves the hardway.

Also we almost there and about to finish the network setup (thanks for all of you guys).

[NoUserName]

- later on edit -

this is the network adapter:

http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=284

[NoUserName]

I've just installed the D-Link_DGE-528T_Gigabit card and now I can see the jumbo frames option exist.

so, now shall i use the d-link one instead of the built-in one in the dell optiplex gx 620?

[articuno1au]

Don't use jumbo frames.

That's just adding more pain to this than you need. The jumbo frames will make a minute difference at best. Just run with what you have.

Gigabit networking will likely bring your speed up to ~100MBps. At this point, as Budman observed, you are more likely to be capped by your computers hardware than the network.

Just set it up, stop thinking about it so much and just do it.. This is a basic thing.

[TEX4S]

Don't use jumbo frames.

That's just adding more pain to this than you need. The jumbo frames will make a minute difference at best. Just run with what you have.

Gigabit networking will likely bring your speed up to ~100MBps. At this point, as Budman observed, you are more likely to be capped by your computers hardware than the network.

Just set it up, stop thinking about it so much and just do it.. This is a basic thing.

EXACTLY - talk about mulling over every insignificant detail there is ! --

2 switches or 1 ? WOW - by using 1 you saved yourself an entire .00000001 seconds !

Dont need to be a network guru to understand things like that.

If you get near 100MB/sec - you are moving files unbelievably fast over ethernet - even if it peaks @ 70MB - be happy & dont sweat pointless details that will only show a benefit if you did it 24/7 over the next 10 years.

Curious, what kind of business is this ?

[NoUserName]

Here is the details of the d-link one:

[NoUserName]

I am sorry I did not realized your replies because been making the print screen :(

Don't use jumbo frames.

That's just adding more pain to this than you need. The jumbo frames will make a minute difference at best. Just run with what you have.

Gigabit networking will likely bring your speed up to ~100MBps. At this point, as Budman observed, you are more likely to be capped by your computers hardware than the network.

Just set it up, stop thinking about it so much and just do it.. This is a basic thing.

Ok, Thanks a lot for you and for all other good people input in this thread, really saved us a lot of money indeed for a consultant.

EXACTLY - talk about mulling over every insignificant detail there is ! --

it is just I am really worry for getting started then have a problem ... but I will listen to your advise my friend.

2 switches or 1 ? WOW - by using 1 you saved yourself an entire .00000001 seconds !

Dont need to be a network guru to understand things like that.

I am sorry, but please, do you say that as an example to clear your idea to do not worry about details?

Or you mean for real that using two switches and bridge both of them will almost make no differences?

Thanks for this tip and sorry if I am asking silly or stupid question ... please be patient :)

If you get near 100MB/sec - you are moving files unbelievably fast over ethernet - even if it peaks @ 70MB - be happy & dont sweat pointless details that will only show a benefit if you did it 24/7 over the next 10 years.

That would be really amazing thing to be achieved and I never ask for something more indeed.

Curious, what kind of business is this ?

It is as I mentioned on the beginning of the thread here

We are a small media producing company that are working under short term contracts out sourced for some local TV channels to record its shows on a daily base and do video encoding to various format like .avi, .rm, .flv, .mp3 ? and upload it to famous websites plus a .mpeg copy to be given to the channel itself.

[sc302 Veteran]

2 switches or 1 ? WOW - by using 1 you saved yourself an entire .00000001 seconds !

Dont need to be a network guru to understand things like that.

This is not accurate. This would depend on how many computers are being copied from and to. You can bottleneck on the uplinks between switches. It shouldn't take a math genius to figure out that you can't pull 2 or more through something that is only capable of 1. And the 1 will get divided by the computers trying to pull data through it, 2 computers pulling will only get 500mb, 3 pulling 333mb and so on. But if all of the computers are on the same switch they can maintain 1Gb/s between all of them, they aren't sharing a 1Gb connection.

Make sense now? He needs it for massive file transfers not connecting pcs to a network that will browse the internet and pull small docs from a server. He needs all available bandwidth, but if he is only copying to 1 computer it is a moot point.

[cybertimber2008]

OP, can you walk us through how you copy? Do you do one machine at a time or multiple?

And how do you copy? Are you "moving" the file to another computer, or do you copy it from the recording computer to the editing computer, leaving the original on the recorder.

[NoUserName]

OP, can you walk us through how you copy?

So far I was using the copy software tera copy and winmend software ...

Do you do one machine at a time or multiple?

Yes it is a one file from a one machine in a time, as I open the copy software and drag and drop the file from various network computers and place them all in queue then it is copying one by one ... so no parallel transfer under any circumstances as I read that multi transfer increase the time 0f transferring.

And how do you copy? Are you "moving" the file to another computer, or do you copy it from the recording computer to the editing computer, leaving the original on the recorder.

Yes exactly this is what I am doing ... then after finishing the transfer I do delete the file from the recording machine (using remote desktop) then do a restart or a shut down, and setup ccleaner to run when computer start to clean everything to save space on the hard drive as each computer from the recording machine using a 80 gb hard drive and make it on big partition as making two r three partitions will lose a lot of space.

But please let me ask if moving the files is any better instead of copying, but I use the copy way in case anything wrong happened during the move process.

[NoUserName]

I've just come back from the mall now and bought this switch:

D-Link 16-Port Gigabit Switch DGS-1016D:

http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=337

And will use another cisco one I mentioned earlier ... so we will have two small network, and two adsl routers ... that is all I think :)

And got two kind of cables to try and test:

- Patch cord cat 6 premium line

- Patch cable cat6 blue molded intellinet

Both are 5 m length but premium line is more expensive then intellinet (I do not know of any given reason and the guy in the mall did not know as well, so if any one can advise for this regard that would be awesome).

Also for short cables (10 m maximum) will it make any differ in my case for performance? or almost all cables are the same?

Thanks a lot and too much appreciated :)

[Ambroos]

Cat 6 is not needed unless you're going 100m or more in length. A good Cat5E-cable will work.

Connect everything, see if every computer goes in Gigabit mode (you can see that in the network properties in Windows, status of the adapter states the link speed). If all computers are in Gigabit mode, you're ready to go. You shouldn't even have to replace cables. Just first replace the slow switch(es) with the new one, and see if it works. It probably will.

More expensive cables will not give you faster transfer speeds. As long as the link speed is Gigabit, you're always fine. Always.

[cybertimber2008]

I've just come back from the mall now and bought this switch:

D-Link 16-Port Gigabit Switch DGS-1016D:

http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=337

And will use another cisco one I mentioned earlier ... so we will have two small network, and two adsl routers ... that is all I think :)

And got two kind of cables to try and test:

- Patch cord cat 6 premium line

- Patch cable cat6 blue molded intellinet

Both are 5 m length but premium line is more expensive then intellinet (I do not know of any given reason and the guy in the mall did not know as well, so if any one can advise for this regard that would be awesome).

Also for short cables (10 m maximum) will it make any differ in my case for performance? or almost all cables are the same?

Thanks a lot and too much appreciated :)

My 2c, the switch will be fine. Forget the premium cables... just return those.

As far as Cat5/5E/6... use 5E if you already have it... if not, use 6 (forward compatibility, a little more robust, little less interference, yadda yadda)

[Salty Wagyu]

Indeed, any cheap cat5e cable will do the job. ?0.70 2m cat5e cable and a ?10 TP-Link gigabit switch from Amazon was all I needed to peak 115-120MB/sec on large files out of the box.

[TEX4S]

This is not accurate. This would depend on how many computers are being copied from and to. You can bottleneck on the uplinks between switches. It shouldn't take a math genius to figure out that you can't pull 2 or more through something that is only capable of 1. And the 1 will get divided by the computers trying to pull data through it, 2 computers pulling will only get 500mb, 3 pulling 333mb and so on. But if all of the computers are on the same switch they can maintain 1Gb/s between all of them, they aren't sharing a 1Gb connection.

Make sense now? He needs it for massive file transfers not connecting pcs to a network that will browse the internet and pull small docs from a server. He needs all available bandwidth, but if he is only copying to 1 computer it is a moot point.

meh - youre asking me to read the whole thread ? nonsense

[NoUserName]

I am afraid that after using the 1 gb it is still not fast and only 38 mb/s maximum:

Please advise what shall I do now and which settings I should tweak or adjust.

Transfer done exactly in 07:34 minutes for a file sized = 16 gb

Thanks a lot