[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Vista Briefcase worse than XP?!

Subject: Re: Vista Briefcase worse than XP?!
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:31:05 +0000
Newsgroups: uk.comp.homebuilt

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 08:24:23 +0000, Alex Fraser <[email protected]>

>Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> Meh. 3.5meg/second from the winbox to the NAS (Infrant NV+), so no
>> change. It's a 2GHz c2D with 3gig RAM, Broadcom gigabit that pushes
>> 50meg/second in other conditions (and maybe faster - that's hard drive
>> limited).
>> Pulling from the NAS is quicker - 6meg/second. Meh again.
>> The Apples and the Linux box get 20-40meg/second to the NAS. I'm
>> guessing it's some sort of dissent between the Linux that runs the NAS
>> and Cygwin's sockets. 
>I'm no expert on Cygwin's internals, but from what I do know about 
>network programming on Unix systems and Windows, I'd expect sockets to 
>have a fairly thin wrapper; there's no obvious reason for such dissent 
>at that level.

You'd think. Might be disk read/write instead, I suppose - but that
should be a thin wrapper as well.

>Could it be some kind of version conflict?

Shouldn't be - cwRsync uses 3.0, previously I used various 2.x
versions on Windows. The NAS uses 3.0.4, the Apples use 2.6.9, Linux

>Although it doesn't exactly solve the problem, can you use a mapped drive?

Slightly under 3meg/second... which doesn't make much sense. Using
"xcopy /r src dest" and a stopwatch gives me 24meg/second!

>> I don't have a second Windows box to try like-to-like transfers.
>How about between the Windows box and the Apples/Linux box?

Slow too. 

This is a different winbox to the one I used originally 18 months ago,
both hardware and software. This is XP, that was Win2000.

Odd, eh? Never mind.

        Cheers - Jaimie
Okay, it works now. Or at least it malfunctions in all the expected ways.
                                                     -- Mark Edwards, asr 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>