No no I wasn't calling you that, or implying it. But what you should know is our machines are still a big limitation when it comes to transferring big files. Have you ever seen servers lag? The power those machines have are light years ahead of our home machines. The big numbers you see are complete gimmicks with routers. The machines will always bottleneck transferring files that start to become large, or when trying to host servers.
Wireless-N GONE
- Thread starter pappy53
- Start date
No no I wasn't calling you that, or implying it. But what you should know is our machines are still a big limitation when it comes to transferring big files. Have you ever seen servers lag? The power those machines have are light years ahead of our home machines. The big numbers you see are complete gimmicks with routers. The machines will always bottleneck transferring files that start to become large, or when trying to host servers.
Here is a great article for everyone to read. HD speed can also affect that transfer speed, and in real world testing the speeds of our HD's do not come close to the inflated network speed numbers.
Computer Speeds (Hard Drives & Network)
Computer Speeds (Hard Drives & Network)
All I can say is that I constantly utilize my internet connection to it's fullest ability. And my gigabit network. I transfer a lot of files over the network and I usually get about 90% use. And that my Evo suffers from not having wireless N anymore as per the purpose of this thread.
Read my above post, you may think you do. But in fact you don't, because your HD is not capable of 100MBps or higher, unless your using a SSD drive. So even on a wired Gigabit network, your still limited to your hard drive transfer speed. The only way to get those speeds is transferring from a USB 2.0 or 3.0 device through the network.
But I do. I have an SSD. And a 4TB raid that is just as fast with the exception of latency.
Most modern hard drives are capable of more than 100MBps. Which is a reason SATA is here instead of PATA.
Most modern hard drives are capable of more than 100MBps. Which is a reason SATA is here instead of PATA.
No most modern HD's are not, especially if we are talking the common HD's we see in computers you buy in the store or from a pre-built site. Only 10k RPM and SSD drives are capable of those read/write speeds. The average consumer does not have what me and you have to achieve these speeds. Besides gaming machines and servers, which machines can you say have those two HD's? Not very many.. If any at all. If your running a laptop or desktop with a 5400RPM or 7200RPM, don't ever expect to transfer a file over the network any faster then 60MBps. That is the limitation of the HD.
4200 RPM - 4MB cache - (20 MBps) Read/Write
5400 RPM - 4MB cache - (30 MBps) Read/Write
7200 RPM - 8MB cache - (60 MBps) Read/Write
10000 RPM - 8MB cache - (85 MBps) Read/Write
15000 RPM - 8MB cache - (130 MBps) Read/Write
64GB SSD (130MBps)Read (105MBps)Write
Just did a speed test on my aux drive which is a WD Black 750GB 7200k drive. Average read speeds were 103MB. Also did a test on a Seagate 2TB 5900 Baracuda and it was about 101 read. Write usually isn't tooooo far from those numbers.
Case closed... Won't continue to argue proof that has been posted. Enjoy the rest of your day.
It's also more well known that not every brand is created equal. So one may claim a speed, but is it really getting that? More times no, then yes.
And I posted proof too. Proof that was updated about 10 minutes ago vs two years of the proof you have provided. Moore's law is for more than CPUs. you have a good day too.
It wouldn't matter if that was tested 5 years ago, because the HD speeds have not changed. They have only got faster, but it still shows testing of what we currently have in speed. Apps that test speed are also very important. Most are inaccurate, just as internet speed websites are. Good day
Perhaps you need to account for the simple fact that those measurements are MegaBYTES per second instead of Megabits per second. While not every hard drive can keep up with a gigabit connection, most can at least do far over 160Mbps (that's the lowest read/write speed on your chart).
We are going by the size of the files that would be transferring. Going by MBps, not Mbps. HD speed is measured by MBps not Mbps. Network speed can be measured by which ever you choose. So if your translating 100Mbps, that would be 12.5MBps.
Yes, and network speed is measure in Mbps. Any hard drive since at least 2000 can far outperform any 54Mbps wireless network limitation.
Your missing the fact that i'm not measuring the speeds by Mbps. I'm measuring by MBps, translating speeds between both. Also measuring the file size of a certain file by MB's. So if your transferring say a library of music that is 50GB's over Wi-Fi translate what speed you would transfer at? Your HD would bottleneck with the router speed.
The bottleneck would obviously be the 54Mbps wireless connection (which is an inflated number to begin with). The HDD would not be the bottleneck on most computers until you reached at least 300Mbps of real throughput on the network (37.5MB/sec write speed is pretty generous these days).
And server lag is rarely ever because of the hard drive speed--it's because they don't have enough free bandwidth to send the data quickly enough.
Well I do host servers at our office, and they do frequently get bottlenecked by HD speed and CPU utilization along with network bandwidth, and latency. So I guess my experience is difference.
Your hard drive would not bottleneck over anything except perhaps ,but not likely, a gigabit wired connection! My benchmark: 106MB/sec. (yes, a big B) And that is the western digital 7200RPM drive.
So I am now transferring my 50GB of music. The gigabit ethernet is pushing out 128MB of data at max speeds. My hard drive will take 106MB. That is pretty close. Now think how that works out for wifi and what not.That is as simple as I can make it. I think it's time for a new server. You also said yourself, my 100mb line is 12MB. That is faster than all of the drives you listed for me.
So I am now transferring my 50GB of music. The gigabit ethernet is pushing out 128MB of data at max speeds. My hard drive will take 106MB. That is pretty close. Now think how that works out for wifi and what not.That is as simple as I can make it. I think it's time for a new server. You also said yourself, my 100mb line is 12MB. That is faster than all of the drives you listed for me.
What makes you think the HD is the bottleneck? What switching equipment are you using? I have no problem pulling over 500Mbps from my non-RAID servers, and my network is the bottleneck on my other servers. That's when I decided to give my server switch an aggregate link of 2Gbps to my edge switch.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
News Only $499 for the Pixel 8a is crazy. How can Google do it?
- Started by AC News
- Replies: 3
-
stupid question regarding vibrate profile
- Started by walterkurtz
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram