Copy over Network - How to increase Speed!!

[shizzl]

My network speed over lan is normally 2,6Mb/sec,
i tested different ways of copying files to mede8er:

1. Windows Explorer / 2,6Mb/sec.
2. Supercopier  / 2,8Mb/sec
3. TeraCopy  / 4,5Mb/sec !!!  . .

Dont know why, but TeraCopy seems to be faster than the others,!
programm is freeware, get it here: http://www.teracopy.com/files/teracopy.exe


Would be nice if you post your results and tell if its also working!

[kingmouse]

http://www.teracopy.com/files/teracopy2b4.exe
Much better.

[apotheker]

I am changing to teracopy too,you're right.

[mysticc]

I also did check several copy-tools for windows some time ago.

This one
http://www.ipmsg.org/tools/fastcopy.html.en
was by far the fastest one.
Still using it when I only have to copy a bunch of files from A to B without having to think on syncing.
At first look you might think it is a cmd-line-tool, but it comes with a GUI, for our convenience. :-)
As I don`t have a HD in my Mede8er cannot try it myself , but maybe some other give it a try?

[vuilnis]

This could be a good entry for the topic Customising your Mede8er > Software Links > Media software links

[Insomniac]

Please be aware that the Beta versions of TeraCopy 2.x are introducing several bugs and antivirus false positives: http://blog.codesector.com/2009/10/11/teracopy-2-07-beta/
Just a gentle reminder that when you decide to use beta software that there could still be issues...

I'll add some of these copy utility links to the software links thread.

Thanks for your feedback guys...

[mysticc]

Just for interest I put a HDD into Mede8er.
Cannot ack what shizzl sees.

Tried copying with Windows Explorer, Directory Opus,  Teracopy and Fastcopy. (13 GB-file)
Netmeter was used to catch transfer-speed.

Teracopy being the slowest, followed by Directory Opus together with Windows Explorer and then Fastcopy.

Somewhat disappointend by Fastcopy although the fastest, but then remembered it is playing its strength when copying many many small files.

However, no method was significant faster, all at about 11 to 12 MB/s (results of Netmeter)
Windows Explorer or Fastcopy show about 5,3 MB/s

Netmeter cannot be really correct in absolute values (but okay to compare) as Mede8er has 100Mbit-Interface.
Machines are connected via GBit-Switch.

Will check with my stopwatch and do some manual maths :-)

[daniescholtz]

I got about 4.6MB/s max using total copy. But not constant though. Got about 4mb/s most of the time.

[Insomniac]

All these copy managers really come into their own when attempting to copy many files at once, as when one copies movies from one drive to another, for example drag-drop, drag-drop, drag-drop, etc...

The Windows Explorer copy shell tries to push everything through at once.

A copy manager on the other hand will create a queue so that only one file goes through at a time, in 'single-file' for want of a better description...

Furthermore a good copy manager will permit you to pause, add, remove, promote, demote, etc the files being copied, plus provide logs and set default actions if similar files already exist such as overwrite, skip, rename, etc... The error handling is also generally better, such as when either a source or destination drive is lost or intermittent.

I doubt too many of them can really make the transfer go that much faster, so to speak, other than do the job with less overhead, although they do play around with packet size...

I have personally always been happy with SuperCopier, simply because it was the first one I came across that did all I needed...

[mysticc]

Jepp, for these big files as video-files normally are copy-tools don`t give an adavantage in terms of speed, but provide some comfort when wanted.

[runefire]

why are copy speeds only taking up to 5MB/sec? it's a 100mbit network, why arent we seeing 10MB/sec speeds?
between my 2 windows7 pc's, I get 10-11MB/sec constantly.

So, what kinds of speeds will I then be seeing with a Wireless-N accesspoint, seeing that I'd have to specially buy one...  


will I be able to play xvid movies/episodes on LAN or wifi?
not too mention HD stuff via LAN/wifi
the entire point of getting the 300mbit/sec accesspoint, was to be able play HD media via Wifi @ about 30MB/sec.

[Maasbommel]

Hi runfire,

I guess you have to do some reading first on mbit and MegaByte:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbyte

And then Wireless-N:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n

After that I hope you will see that you will never reach a speed of 30MB/s over Wireless with current standards.

And also the peformance of wirless is dependant of a lot of environmental factors: iron in the walls, other radio signals from phones etc.
The best performance you will get by using a wired lan connection.

And yes: you can play normal XVID files or other media over wireless connection, of course heavily dependant on your wireless connection quality (and that goes further then only signal strength..)
e.g I play a lot of DVD ISO like this over network.

Playing HD content works best over lan connection: no problems to be expected with that.
Over Wifi only if you have an extreme good signal, in most cases you will get jittering because there is always something in the air that is infuencing the signal.

[mysticc]

@runefire

You are talking of theoretical maximum performance given a certain network-infrastructure, i.e 100 Mbit-cabled Ethernet or 300 Mbit-wireless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths#Local_area_networks
You never will get the theoretical maximum in real-life.

Besides this your endpoints (PC, Mede8er) have to be able to process incoming packets, what asks for a performant CPU, so the interface/chipset in the Mede8er is a limiting factor too (what is true for ALL mediaplayers)

Your speed between your 2 PCs is excellent, however no mediaplayer so far will be able to process packets as fast as the interface/CPU on your PCs can.

My 2 PCs @home have GBit-interface and are connected via GBit-Switch, but I don`t get more than 25MB/s, as one machine has pretty week CPU.

But this has not be of any concern, as it is still fast enough to stream HD 1080p without stutters.

[runefire]

Hi runfire,

I guess you have to do some reading first on mbit and MegaByte:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbyte

And then Wireless-N:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n

erm, not really, hey.
8bits = 1byte

meaning, 300mbit/sec wireless-N should actually by about 37MByte/sec, but add some overheads, and 30MByte/sec should be acceptable.

so, please.... explain where my logic is wrong. maybe you should go do the reading up, eh




as for the limit on your gigabit network, that is most likely due to your hdd's capping out.
and in the late 90's, a 400MHz CPU could still handle "basic" 100mbit/sec network speeds. with today's optimization, that's not an excuse.
getting 5MByte/sec on a 100mbit network is EXTREMELY bad.

hence, me asking.... why can the player only handle 5MB (instead of ~10MB), and what would the norm be on a wireless-N network with the access point about 3meters from the mede8er.

if 5MB instead of 10 is normal on LAN (half the rated speed);
then it leads me to assume 15MB instead of 30MB is normal on wireless-N...... you see where I'm going with this?
streaming HD media via 15MByte/sec sounds very doubtfull.

will 25MByte/sec and higher be expected on a wireless-N accesspoint?

[mysticc]

"as for the limit on your gigabit network, that is most likely due to your hdd's capping out."
Nice thought but you better forget that :-)

streaming HD media via 15MByte/sec sounds very doubtfull.

You don`t know the max. data transfer rate defined for BR.
It is 54 Mbit/s max.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Bitrate.
So why should even only 5MByte/s not be sufficient to stream HD?

Most important for streaming is constant datarate, not highspeed.