trying to copy an 11GB file with SMB is like waiting for death

sodamnregistered · May 14, 2002 10:35PM

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.

the cool gut · May 14, 2002 10:41PM

Yah ... you should have "Stuffed" it first.

buonrotto · May 14, 2002 10:46PM

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.)

sodamnregistered · May 14, 2002 10:49PM

[quote]Originally posted by the cool gut:

Yah ... you should have "Stuffed" it first.

<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.

sodamnregistered · May 14, 2002 10:55PM

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

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.)<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.

zarafa · May 14, 2002 11:59PM

[quote]Originally posted by sodamnregistered:



My beef is that I should get 5-7MB/sec and not the paltry, life draining 1MB/sec I'm getting.

<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).

eugene · May 15, 2002 6:00AM

I got a type-37 error just this evening trying to copy a 4.1 GB disk image I created in Disk Copy...What's worse is that it wouldn't even mount. I was able to create a multipart .dmg image though, with 2 GB chunks. I tried to use ditto to copy the file instead of the Finder and it just stopped at 2 GB as well.

mikey offender · May 15, 2002 1:17PM

Why 2 threads for the same whining? What is your point?

kali · May 15, 2002 4:22PM

[quote]Originally posted by sodamnregistered:



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.<hr></blockquote>

11 GB video file ?? That's a huge porn flick, man ! Can I have it ?

serrano · May 15, 2002 4:32PM

2 posts...

trying to copy an 11GB file with SMB is like waiting for death

Comments