Buffalo LS-500GL - FTP vs Windows File Sharing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Memnoch
  • Start date Start date
M

Memnoch

I bought one of these the other week and was wondering why I am seeing such a
huge difference in transfer rates between FTP and file sharing. I am using
Acronis True Image for backups. The first time I ran a bootdisk backup of
around 60GB it took 3h 20m. When I ran the same transfer over FTP it took
around 50 - 60 minutes. If I utilise jumbo frames I can get this down to just
under 50. Why such a huge difference? I have found some documents comparing
the two and they state that file sharing is faster for single, large transfers
but slower for lots of small files and FTP is the reverse which is definitely
not what I am experiencing.
 
Memnoch said:
I bought one of these the other week and was wondering why I am
seeing such a huge difference in transfer rates between FTP and file
sharing. I am using Acronis True Image for backups. The first time I
ran a bootdisk backup of around 60GB it took 3h 20m. When I ran the
same transfer over FTP it took around 50 - 60 minutes. If I utilise
jumbo frames I can get this down to just under 50. Why such a huge
difference? I have found some documents comparing the two and they
state that file sharing is faster for single, large transfers but
slower for lots of small files and FTP is the reverse which is
definitely not what I am experiencing.
Click to expand...

TI producing an image file aint the same thing as simple file transfer.
There's compression etc involved as well as the file transfer.
 
Previously Memnoch said:
I bought one of these the other week and was wondering why I am
seeing such a huge difference in transfer rates between FTP and file
sharing. I am using Acronis True Image for backups. The first time I
ran a bootdisk backup of around 60GB it took 3h 20m. When I ran the
same transfer over FTP it took around 50 - 60 minutes. If I utilise
jumbo frames I can get this down to just under 50. Why such a huge
difference? I have found some documents comparing the two and they
state that file sharing is faster for single, large transfers but
slower for lots of small files and FTP is the reverse which is
definitely not what I am experiencing.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. FTP can usually saturates any other bottleneck. With large
files that is the disk or the network link. With small files that
is the filesystem layer of the OS.

I would actually expect FTP to be allways the fastest, unless
the ''filesharing'' (whatever that is) bypasses the filesystem
layer.

Arno
 
Hmmm. FTP can usually saturates any other bottleneck. With large
files that is the disk or the network link. With small files that
is the filesystem layer of the OS.

I would actually expect FTP to be allways the fastest, unless
the ''filesharing'' (whatever that is) bypasses the filesystem
layer.
Click to expand...

Strange. The two pages I found, one of them a powerpoint slide if memory
servers, explicitly stated that during their testing they found that FTP was
only the fastest when transfering lots of individual files. Either way it
goes, FTP is definitely the way to go for me. By file sharing I mean using
standard Windows shares. Nothing fancy there, just incredibly slow by
comparison.
 
Back
Top