Transferring same file between PC's one direction is faster than the other

[eidairaman1]

XP's netcode is atrocious. Most likely it is to blame. They significantly revamped it in Vista and have been continuously improving it through 10 today.

Considering how unsecure XP was then id upgrade every xp machine to 7 32bit at the least.

 

[lexluthermiester]

2) Operating system differences (XP tends to have a slower network stack than 7).

My money is on #2. XP's netcode is atrocious.

The test I ran, just a little while ago, did not show that. The way XP handles the network stack is DIFFERENT from 7, not necessarily slower. In fact my XP machine dual boots XP and 7, has a gigabit NIC and it gets the same transfer rates that Win7 does. XP isn't problem.

6) Turion is a very slow processor and, because it doesn't have a hardware NIC controller, the processor can negatively impact file transfers.

That could be part of the problem, though with 2GB of ram, I kinda doubt it.

7) Pushing file transfers (sending to) is always going to be faster than requesting transfers (receiving from).

That's not true either. Transferring files depends more on the hardware and software doing the job rather than which system is pushing/pulling the data.

Considering how insecure XP was then id upgrade every xp machine to 7 32bit at the least.

Oh goodness. Can we let that non-sense go already? I currently use my XP machine to get on the internet. Properly configured, XP is fine. And it's likely going to stay that way because malware is not specifically targeting it anymore. And even if they do, if you use a good firewall/HIPS/antivirus/antimalware suite, things are ok. Most of the good ones still support XP.

EDIT; This edit was typed in using said XP machine.

 

[videobruce]

It's the laptop. Try another. It's old and slow. Write and read speeds are not the same

You mean it's like me "old & slow'?
Before anyone asks, the reason it's still running XP is I have a couple of pieces of test equipment that needs XP to use the associated software. The Laptop originally came with Win7 but had available XP drivers for it which was why I choose that model. It's a HP Probook 6545b

I'm more than aware of the performance difference between the two devices. Again, what I don't understand why the difference between which machine initiates the transfer. I don't use it often. I only discovered this testing those cables.

 

[Jetster]

Yeah next logical step would be to try another PC for testing the connections

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Computer A is 1000BaseT where computer B is 100BaseT. Thats my thought on the matter

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yeah next logical step would be to try another PC for testing the connections

Thinking at this point, it's academic.

Computer A is 1000BaseT where computer B is 100BaseT. Thats my thought on the matter

But if they're direct connected the faster system will sync down to the slower speed.
EDIT, just re-read the OP, nevermind.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

But if they're direct connected the faster system will sync down to the slower speed.

Resulting in the slower transfer times the OP is experiencing.

 

[videobruce]

I wonder if there is a QoS or limitation enabled in router FW op isnt aware of?
Anyway, this is what i was referring to when I mentioned the win10/7/xp file transfer function & its inaccurate readings i often can get. Ofc, in the example below, i initiated the problem, but only to demonstrate its likliness to display funky speeds at times..

No Qos or limitation set.
Regarding M$'s file transfer, I did mention I use BitMeter which seems to be reliable as to the readings.

Turion was from the A64 Days, where as the Desktop is a FX 8350, which is 3 Gens Ahead.
He is overexpecting the laptop to perform fast, however with both being so different in hardware used they will never be the same.

I can assure you I'm not over expecting anything from the Laptop. I know it's a 'weak' processor. It's this huge variation in speeds. From as low as 11Mbps to 95Mbps to a almost constant 95Mbps depending on which of the 4 version of transfer I preformed.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Resulting in the slower transfer times the OP is experiencing.

Um, see the edit..

I can assure you I'm not over expecting anything from the Laptop. I know it's a 'weak' processor. It's this huge variation in speeds. From as low as 11Mbps to 95Mbps to a almost constant 95Mbps depending on which of the 4 version of transfer I preformed.

Still think it's the Marvell NIC. Not that there is anything wrong with it by design, just that it's Win XP drivers are weak. I'd bet real money on it.

 

[bonehead123]

IF either system has any RGB lighting, just turn it off or remove it altogether, cause I've heard that it can suck up alot of network and system resources HAHAHAHA.....

just kidding of course

 

[lexluthermiester]

IF either system has any RGB lighting, just turn it off or remove it altogether, cause I've heard that it can suck up alot of network and system resources HAHAHAHA.....

just kidding of course

Wait now, Red LED's are alright because they're low spectrum..

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

IF either system has any RGB lighting, just turn it off or remove it altogether, cause I've heard that it can suck up alot of network and system resources HAHAHAHA.....

Where's the dislike button when you need it?

 

[videobruce]

Computer A is 1000BaseT where computer B is 100BaseT. Thats my thought on the matter

Are you referring to the NIC or something else?

IF either system has any RGB lighting, just turn it off or remove it altogether

Man, bite your tougue! I don't game, or even have a 'clear' panel enclosure.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Are you referring to the NIC or something else?

The NIC.

I think I saw this being asked somewhere else but im at work and a bit scatter brained atm, but have you checked to make sure that the NIC settings in Windows for the XP machine are correct? Updated to the latest drivers?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Computer A is 1000BaseT where computer B is 100BaseT. Thats my thought on the matter

I just realized his figures are in bits. Considering the age of the Turion label and that it is a laptop, this is likely.

Edit: Marvell 88E8072 is a gigabit chip.

Edit: Could be switch/router is only 10/100

 

[videobruce]

Both NIC's are Gigabyte.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

What network equipment is between them, if anything?

 

[DRDNA]

try swapping out the Gigabyte Nics to opposite PC's and see if that makes a difference......

 

[videobruce]

A TP-Link WDR3600 Router running openwrt (for now) and a Trendnet TE100S8 'Switch'.

How does one take two MB mounted NIC's and switch them?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Trendnet TE100S8 <- there's your problem: it's 10/100:
http://www.trendnet.com/products/proddetail?prod=400_TE100-S8&cat=114

How does one take two MB mounted NIC's and switch them?

Crossover cable and assigned IP addresses. Not recommended.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Trendnet TE100S8 <- there's you're problem: it's 10/100:
http://www.trendnet.com/products/proddetail?prod=400_TE100-S8&cat=114

Called it!

 

[qubit]

You wouldn't think a HDD could bottleneck a 100Mb/s network, but it can. I noticed a speed up when I replaced it with an SSD.

 

[videobruce]

Crossover cable and assigned IP addresses. Not recommended.

He was talking about moving the network cards from one PC to another. One is a Laptop, the other is a Tower, both with board mounted network chipsets.

You wouldn't think a HDD could bottleneck a 100mb/s network, but it can. I noticed a speed up when I replaced it with an SSD.

That doesn't explain the speed variances, only the top speed.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

100 Mbps ~= 12 MBps
1000 Mbps ~= 120 MBps

I had hard drives back in 2000 that could handle 40 MBps. Modern hard drives operate in excess of 150 MBps which can saturate a gigabit network. This is why there is a growing push to go beyond gigabit.

You're undeniably being bottlenecked by that switch. Until that's fixed, you won't be seeing over your stated ~95 Mbps.

 

[videobruce]

Understood, but I don't need a GT90. New switch ordered.