Fast connections between PC's

[Avalon]

Wonderful analogy, but: where did I tell the OP to buy a 10Gb switch to solve their problem...? Please quote it. I demonstrated that 10Gb would at least 3 times faster than 1Gb. If the OP would find 3 times faster "meaningful", that is their choice.

It is up to the OP to decide what to do; I am providing information. I already offered to automate and solve this problem in person in my first post in this thread.

But you didn’t demonstrate it would be faster in this example which is the one being discussed. We need to identify the bottle neck here before the solution, it’s literally the most basic step in fault finding. You would need a large portion of humble pie after throwing someone else’s money at 10Gb without understanding why the current workflow is at 5% of its stated capacity,, and you seem very hungry

 

[Avalon]

If they're wired in to a local switch, then it shouldn't be a remote connection then (that uses a VPN to connect). However, thinking about it now, could REALLY long lines be involved? (Beyond the length for the spec of the cable perhaps?)

Was also thinking 40Mb(it) per second didn't really fit any cable. But that was using 60s as an actual base line, to which OP did say 60s+ (plus), meaning it's likely more, but has seen 60s before (as best optimum transfer). So that got me thinking maybe 5 x 20Mb(it) per second connections? Especially if all devices are transferring at the same time to the core system. Which then suggests the swtich might not be a 1Gb(it) switch or has been set to 100Mb(it) rather than run at 1Gb(it).

So many possibilities here, need more info from OP.

The critical bit of your first sentence is ‘if’, and based on what has been posted, you are no more comfortable with the detail supplied than I am. I suspect op has omitted to tell us something vitally important, and that’s why they need to identify the bottleneck before choosing a next step. Without doing that, it’s just guess work as to if ripping everything out and putting 10Gb in would actually help, or still run at 40mbit because someone jumped the basic steps anyone who grasps basic principals of workflows and networks should take. I mean they could get lucky and the issue is in the sections they replace, or they could throw £££’s at it and get the same result as the person who updated it from 100mbit to 1Gb got, and leave someone else to actually diagnose/fix it. I know which person I would rather be in that example.

Op, please give us the info we need to actually help you.

 

[Meddling-Monk]

The critical bit of your first sentence is ‘if’, and based on what has been posted, you are no more comfortable with the detail supplied than I am.

Well, OP in first post did mention it's all wired into their 1Gb(it) switch, so I took that from there. But agree that the details provided leaves a lot to fill in and that's definitely not helping in locking down where a cause or problem is located at.

I'm personally most intrigued by OP's post because of the equipment gathering involved and of course how exactly that's all laid out given if the wired into a 1Gb(it) switch is true, suggesting quite a large area for the separate devices to gather data (hence the exceeded long network lines thought, especially if located across different buildings), or at least many rooms (then wired together to a central location), or different devices in a larger room (attic perhaps?).

 

[Madmaz]

Based on your file size and transfer time, you don't have a throughput bottleneck with 1Gb connectivity. Your bottleneck lies elsewhere. On 1Gb, a 300MB (assuming megabyte) file should take a few seconds (transfer speed should be around 120MB/s).

Outline these things for us:

Frequency of transfers
Number of files / total transfer size - I assume 15GB
Storage on each device that transmits and receives these files - PC 1 - HDD, PC 2 SSD, etc.

Edit: just saw your newer post. If you are using SSDs (even SATA-based) these should be maxing out the 1Gb throughput no problem. You have an issue somewhere.

Edit 2: seen you're in Hereford. PM me and we could look at resolving this issue in person and automating this transfer for you.

thanks - would try to PM you if could figure out how to do it in this forum?

 

[aaronyuri]

But you didn’t demonstrate it would be faster in this example which is the one being discussed. We need to identify the bottle neck here before the solution, it’s literally the most basic step in fault finding. You would need a large portion of humble pie after throwing someone else’s money at 10Gb without understanding why the current workflow is at 5% of its stated capacity,, and you seem very hungry

Disagree with me all you'd like, but claiming that I'm interested in wasting people's money is an unwarranted professional attack. You made a claim and I disproved it. That is all it is. I have, at no point in this thread, encouraged the OP to upgrade to 10Gb and ditch 1Gb.

I would never push one of my customers to invest in a solution that wouldn't meet their requirements or suit their needs. Please cast your stones elsewhere.

 

[HoneyBadger]

There are so many unanswered questions/varibles from the OP that advising any solution based on the avalaible data means you’re making loads of assumptions or ignorantly guessing.

 

[robj20]

Even if this was 100GB a day I wouldn't be that bothered about upgrading past 1Gb.

I think you're on the wrong forum if that's your attitude. Lol

I have 2.5gbe now and already planning on 10gbe.

 

[Caged]

100GB of transfers a day is less than 14 minutes on the wire in a 24 hour period assuming everything can utilise your links, it wouldn't be a target for an upgrade