You learn something new everyday. It's not always what you want to learn though.
So I have the NTFS drive mounted on the Mac. And my idea was that if I can just get the Mac and the Linux box to connect directly to each other (over ethernet, not over 802.11b to the router) that everything would go much faster. After all their are gigabit ports on both ends.
I thought maybe I couldn't get it to work this way before because I need a crossover ethernet cable. I'm not sure that is true, since the Mac ports are supposed to be auto-sensing, but maybe that's only when connected to other Macs. Anyway I bought the crossover cable and got it to work.
Hallelujah I thought.
Except the copy still only went at 300 KB/sec. WTF? I guess the network connection was not the limiting factor. I wonder what is? I guess it must be the external drive that is the bottleneck. I'm surprised it can't do better than that though. This is a 2 drive RAID-0 connected over 400 Mb/sec Firewire to the Mac (and then over gigabit ethernet to the server.)
In any case, I just went back to doing it wirelessly because that way I can still be on the internet with the Mac while it is copying.
Not sure how this is going to work though since at this rate it will take a *long* time to make the copy. While I figure out what to do I'm just going to let it run (or crawl) in the background. Almost to 1 GB! Only 369 more to go. :-)
300 KB/s is going to mean just over 1 GB per hour! Obviously I can't copy 370 GB this way. That would take 15 days. So I still need a new way to do this.
Can't think of one yet though.
Can you put a firewire or USB 2 card in the server?
Yeah Mark, that's probably the thing. Turns out the USB ports on the server are only USB 1.1 so a USB 2 card (or a FireWire card for that matter) would surly help. It's got to be the USB 1.1 port that is the bottleneck. That's something you hang a mouse off of, not transfer several hundred billion bytes over.
Still it's a lot better than 802.11b to the router (although I'm still not sure why that was so slow: ~2 Mb/s)
|
So I have the NTFS drive mounted on the Mac. And my idea was that if I can just get the Mac and the Linux box to connect directly to each other (over ethernet, not over 802.11b to the router) that everything would go much faster. After all their are gigabit ports on both ends.
I thought maybe I couldn't get it to work this way before because I need a crossover ethernet cable. I'm not sure that is true, since the Mac ports are supposed to be auto-sensing, but maybe that's only when connected to other Macs. Anyway I bought the crossover cable and got it to work.
Hallelujah I thought.
Except the copy still only went at 300 KB/sec. WTF? I guess the network connection was not the limiting factor. I wonder what is? I guess it must be the external drive that is the bottleneck. I'm surprised it can't do better than that though. This is a 2 drive RAID-0 connected over 400 Mb/sec Firewire to the Mac (and then over gigabit ethernet to the server.)
In any case, I just went back to doing it wirelessly because that way I can still be on the internet with the Mac while it is copying.
Not sure how this is going to work though since at this rate it will take a *long* time to make the copy. While I figure out what to do I'm just going to let it run (or crawl) in the background. Almost to 1 GB! Only 369 more to go. :-)
- jim 11-18-2005 11:57 pm
300 KB/s is going to mean just over 1 GB per hour! Obviously I can't copy 370 GB this way. That would take 15 days. So I still need a new way to do this.
Can't think of one yet though.
- jim 11-19-2005 12:06 am
Can you put a firewire or USB 2 card in the server?
- mark 11-19-2005 12:27 am
Yeah Mark, that's probably the thing. Turns out the USB ports on the server are only USB 1.1 so a USB 2 card (or a FireWire card for that matter) would surly help. It's got to be the USB 1.1 port that is the bottleneck. That's something you hang a mouse off of, not transfer several hundred billion bytes over.
Still it's a lot better than 802.11b to the router (although I'm still not sure why that was so slow: ~2 Mb/s)
- jim 11-19-2005 9:28 pm