trying to copy an 11GB file with SMB is like waiting for death
It's not just me right? The SBM client stutters, stalls, and in the end, produces a really crappy transfer rate?
I'm averaging 1.02MB/sec on an otherwise fast and well performing 10/100 network.
Sucks to say the least.
I have Dave 2.5 and tried to upgrade it to see is faster, but their website claims my serial is invalid, so I can't call them until tomorrow. So typical.
I'm getting more pissed my the minute, and i have a lot a minutes to go.
Maybe I should split this file into 3 and burn friggin 3 DVDs. This is so pathetic.
I'm averaging 1.02MB/sec on an otherwise fast and well performing 10/100 network.
Sucks to say the least.
I have Dave 2.5 and tried to upgrade it to see is faster, but their website claims my serial is invalid, so I can't call them until tomorrow. So typical.
I'm getting more pissed my the minute, and i have a lot a minutes to go.
Maybe I should split this file into 3 and burn friggin 3 DVDs. This is so pathetic.
Comments
(Having said that, yes SMB and other filesystem transfers for whatever reason are rather slow in the Aqua GUI.)
<strong>Yah ... you should have "Stuffed" it first. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Stuffing does not make an 11GB video file very much (if any) smaller. It's best for grouping a bunch of smaller files into one file for easer transport.
<strong>11 GIGAbytes in one file?! :eek: Yes, this will take some time. Was this a Mac file? If so, look at the bright side: I don't think Macs could open files larger than 2GB before OS X.
(Having said that, yes SMB and other filesystem transfers for whatever reason are rather slow in the Aqua GUI.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
My beef is that I should get 5-7MB/sec and not the paltry, life draining 1MB/sec I'm getting.
2GB+ files have been allowed since 9.1, I believe, although such large files are definitely handled better with OSX, I have not gotten any type-40 errors or whatever i used to get a lot of under OS9. Man, those were showstoppers.
I used to copy these files to my Linux box and then to my w2k machines, that was actually faster than direct OSX to w2k transfers. I can use afp:// with my Linux box, so basically, SMB in OSX is pretty cool on paper, but not very cool in reality.
Anyway, I'm rebuilding my Linux server, so I don't have it available to me tonight, thus th re-opening of this deep wound.
<strong>
My beef is that I should get 5-7MB/sec and not the paltry, life draining 1MB/sec I'm getting.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even in Windows 2000 (for instance), where SMB/CIFS is "native", an 11 GB file transfer is painful. It differs from waiting for death mostly in that it's a certainty that death will occur, eventually.
For file transfers of that size, regardless of OS, I almost always use FTP, HTTP, or SCP instead (SCP being slower, but occasionally appropriate over untrusted networks).
<strong>
Stuffing does not make an 11GB video file very much (if any) smaller. It's best for grouping a bunch of smaller files into one file for easer transport.</strong><hr></blockquote>
11 GB video file ?? That's a huge porn flick, man ! Can I have it ?