Jeff Nelson wrote: > Dave Erickson wrote: > >> Jeff Nelson wrote: >> >>> I'm not getting the performance I would have hoped, but at least the >>> copy is running. I've got to transfer about 180gb worth of data >>> spread across 5000 files. I'm getting about 3.6gb/hour so I figure >>> I'm looking at 50 hours. This is on a 100baseT LAN. >> >> >> >> Maybe time for a 1000 mBit LAN Card? Anyways, glad to help.... > > > > I actually thought about it for a bit. The ASUS does come with a > 1000/100/10 integrated NIC, so the idea is tempting 'cause I'd only need > one, plus a crossover cable (or a switch upgrade, too). > > But I decided this was the best I was going to get. Why? Because the > transfer is not limited by bandwidth, it's limited by the SMB protocol > implementation. I've got at least 3 times the bandwidth capacity > available in my existing 100mbit LAN that I'm not using. Both systems > aren't even breathing hard. The single switch that's between the two > systems blinks activity at a rate of about 4 times/sec with noticable > pauses between flashes. I think the protocol is inefficient, but it > works. I could get way better performance using FTP, but I've got lots > of files and subdirectories and FTP isn't recursive. Maybe I oughta poke > around for a graphical FTP client that is... > > But it was fun to think about 1000mBit for a while. :-) > > Thanks again for the help. > > -Jeff I recently did a transfer of about 30 GB ove samba and a 1000 mBit direct connection with a crossover cable and I was averaging 15-20 percent bandwidth utilization throughout. Which is anywhere from 150 - 200 mBit per second. But if it's working maybe best not to tinker.... -- Dave Erickson [ http://www.esox.us/ ]