What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

JPEG's

frontier204

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
1,344
Location
ON, Canada
What protocol are you using? (Windows File Share, SAMBA, FTP?)

I haven't noticed anything of the sort, but anyway when I copy pictures around I'm easily limited by hard disk speed on my home server (WD Caviar Green 15EARS) before saturating a gigabite connection. I don't know about specific file formats, but I know that transferring a whole lot of little files is much slower than transferring one big file of the same size, which is why I put my little files in an archive (even a .tar with no compression) before sending them over a network.
 

lastsplash

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
57
Location
Kenora, ON
Transferring from a Win7 machine to WHS.

Win7 machine uses SSD and 2x1TB Blacks in RAID0, WHS has 2x2TB Greens and 2x500GB Blues.

Everything transfers at normal speeds until it gets to photo's, then it transfers at around 10MB/sec.
 

JD

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
10,734
Location
Toronto, ON
I'd say it's because you're transferring a bunch of relatively small files. That involves more seeking, reading and writing by the hard drives to perform. Also if you consider the file system too, much more data needs to be written about each file and where it resides physically on the disk. Compared to large files that is a single continuous data stream which involves much less overhead.

As said above though, if you're backing up files, best to just put them into an archive to make a single large file to send across the network.
 

Latest posts

Twitter

Top