Any alternative to transfer files faster? - Hardware & Software

So... I'm using SFTP atm to transfer a 13GB file over the internet. I want some faster alternative because both FTP and SFTP will not upload faster then 60Kbps, Its really fucking annoying as the ETA on the file is two and a half days. [img]http://imageshack.us/m/803/2918/kkkk.png[/img]

BitTorrent

Sounds like you're hitting the upload speed limit given to you by the ISP. There isn't really any way around it unless its quicker to bring a physical copy of the data to whoever you're trying to send it to.

Although this probably has to do with the upload speed at the place you're trying to get the file from, in which case no method will be faster. Actually it might be fastest if someone copies it over to a 16 gig flash drive and mails it to you, just a thought.

[QUOTE=M2k3;29903128]Sounds like you're hitting the upload speed limit given to you by the ISP. There isn't really any way around it unless its quicker to bring a physical copy of the data to whoever you're trying to send it to.[/QUOTE] my upload is 786Kbps... it wont go faster then 60Kbps and my virtual servers port speed is 1000Mbit so neither should be limiting it to 60Kb/s [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=chipset;29903133]Although this probably has to do with the upload speed at the place you're trying to get the file from, in which case no method will be faster. Actually it might be fastest if someone copies it over to a 16 gig flash drive and mails it to you, just a thought. [/QUOTE] I can't mail files to a virtual server and I am not trying to download a file, but upload one.

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;29903156]my upload is 786kbps... it wont go faster then 60kbps. [/QUOTE] learn the difference between bits and Bytes. If your upload speed is rated in bits per second, the actual speed in Bytes is bps/8. bits is abbreviated as a lower case b Bytes is abbreviated as an uppercase B And on that subject, Kilo is always abbreviated with an uppercase K. If that upload speed is the one given to you by the ISP, chances are the actual speed in KB/s isn't gonna be more than 60 since you never get the speed you pay for. (786/8 = 98.25)

It might be possible through some kind of BitTorrent magic, but I doubt it. If that's your max upload speed, split it into parts and upload parts to reduce the risks of corruption.

[img]http://www.speedtest.net/result/1301178085.png[/img] [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=chipset;29903204]learn the difference between bits and Bytes. If your upload speed is rated in bits per second, the actual speed in Bytes is bps/8. bits is abbreviated as a lower case b Bytes is abbreviated as an uppercase B And on that subject, Kilo is always abbreviated with an uppercase K. If that upload speed is the one given to you by the ISP, chances are the actual speed in KB/s isn't gonna be more than 60 since you never get the speed you pay for. (786/8 = 98.25)[/QUOTE] I fixed it and included a speedtest to prove my upload isnt horrible for a home connection.

[QUOTE=chipset;29903204] ...isn't gonna be more than 60 since you never get the speed you pay for. (786/8 = 98.25)[/QUOTE] it's not about you "not getting what you pay for" those bits of speed you think you're entitled to are part of tcp overhead [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=doonbugie2;29903252][img_thumb]http://www.speedtest.net/result/1301178085.png[/img_thumb] [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] I fixed it and included a speedtest to prove my upload isnt horrible for a home connection.[/QUOTE] that is a horrible upload speed

[QUOTE=Roo-kie;29903276]it's not about you "not getting what you pay for" those bits of speed you think you're entitled to are part of tcp overhead [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] that is a horrible upload speed[/QUOTE] Its not horrible for what I need, what does my current upload speed have to do with my SFTP and FTP limiting to 60KB/s? Stop trying to derail the thread with your internet connection criticism.

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;29903252][img_thumb]http://www.speedtest.net/result/1301178085.png[/img_thumb] [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] I fixed it and included a speedtest to prove my upload isnt horrible for a home connection.[/QUOTE] 0.49 Mb/s = 490 Kb/s = 61.25 KB/s. Note the capitalization of the b. You're getting the max speed you can

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;29903300]Its not horrible for what I need, what does my current upload speed have to do with my SFTP and FTP limiting to 60KB/s? Stop trying to derail the thread with your internet connection criticism.[/QUOTE] It's getting limited because that's the max you can get.

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;29903300]Its not horrible for what I need, what does my current upload speed have to do with my SFTP and FTP limiting to 60KB/s? Stop trying to derail the thread with your internet connection criticism.[/QUOTE] the protocol doesn't limit the speed, your connection does

[QUOTE=chipset;29903301]0.49 Mb/s = 490 Kb/s = 61.25 KB/s. Note the capitalization of the b. You're getting the max speed you can[/QUOTE] Well shit, thanks for clearing up my lack of knowledge on this subject. I never realized that my max was actually 60KB/s... I guess I will be upgrading my connection and networking knowledge soon, oh wait I live in Canada where the internet is extremely expensive. QUICK! EVERYBODY RATE OP DUMB!

typically upstream speeds are quite expensive, especially on a home connection usually the cheapest way to do it is get a slower symmetrical connection

[QUOTE=Roo-kie;29903362]typically upstream speeds are quite expensive, especially on a home connection usually the cheapest way to do it is get a slower symmetrical connection[/QUOTE] I agree, unfortunately cable is the only other option that opposes the phone company. This kind of sucks though, I have to wait almost 3 days to do any heavy network activity and actually use my virtual server.

upload it from somewhere else like school/uni/library or something? it sucks for a lot of people that want to run servers from home for personal use but can't due to cripplingly bad upstream speeds or lack of annex m

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;29903379]I have to wait almost 3 days to do any heavy network activity[/QUOTE] NetLimiter and/or QoS

Send the file on a thumbdrive, and thumbdrive in a letter, and letter on a carrier pigeon. I've done that, though it didn't arrive to the target.

[QUOTE=Darkimmortal;29907192]NetLimiter and/or QoS[/QUOTE] Then it will take even longer... I limited it down to 45KB/s so I can still browse the web normally though. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Roo-kie;29903453]upload it from somewhere else like school/uni/library or something? it sucks for a lot of people that want to run servers from home for personal use but can't due to cripplingly bad upstream speeds or lack of annex m[/QUOTE] I don't want to risk my sensetive files on the in a public library, and the other options are not to my avail. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] Yes, thats the reason I'm renting a VPS by the month... so I can host a decent number of clients at a decent speed and I do not have the money for expensive and reliable hardware at the moment.

Yay its finished, I got some guy named Chris at my local computer shop to let me upload 13GB through his business connection for a package of gum...

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;29903332]Well shit, thanks for clearing up my lack of knowledge on this subject. I never realized that my max was actually 60KB/s... I guess I will be upgrading my connection and networking knowledge soon, oh wait I live in Canada where the internet is extremely expensive. QUICK! EVERYBODY RATE OP DUMB![/QUOTE] I was with Shaw too, switched to Telus since my cousin works there, much better upload, I got about 0.30 Mb/s, with Telus I get about 1.5Mb/s, and I got a cheaper package.

[QUOTE=Roo-kie;29903276] that is a horrible upload speed[/QUOTE] average for Canada

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29920700]average for Canada[/QUOTE] Hell yeah, Canada speeds [img]http://i.imgur.com/OMTmq.gif[/img] Are the conservatives planning to do anything about it?

Send it UPD, [I]technically [/I]it will make it faster as it does not have to wait for a reply, realistically it won't do much/if anything.

[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;29922228][I]technically [/I]it will make it faster as it does not have to wait for a reply[/QUOTE] TCP doesn't wait for each packet to be acknowledged before sending the next one. It'll stop and wait if it sends a bunch of packets and time goes by without any of them being acknowledged, but as long as the receiver is prompt in sending back acknowledgements for what it's received, the sender should rarely, if ever, have to stop and wait.

[QUOTE=Wyzard;29922395]TCP doesn't wait for each packet to be acknowledged before sending the next one. It'll stop and wait if it sends a bunch of packets and time goes by without any of them being acknowledged, but as long as the receiver is prompt in sending back acknowledgements for what it's received, the sender should rarely, if ever, have to stop and wait.[/QUOTE] yes which is why I put the italics on technically

I actually did run into a problem like that once, when I needed to transfer a 15GB file over a LAN. I decided to use HTTP instead of SFTP because the overhead of SFTP's crypto actually does make it a bottleneck on a gigabit LAN. IE7 (the latest version at the time) can't download files bigger than 4GB, so I used Firefox, and found that the throughput was much slower than it should've been. I investigated with Wireshark and found that the downloading PC wasn't sending back acknowledgements until several milliseconds after the server had filled up the receive window and stopped sending. So instead of a continuous stream, the transfer was a long stop-start-stop-start pattern, with millisecond pauses every few tens of kilobytes. I tested IE (with a smaller file that it could handle) and it didn't exhibit the problem. That version of Firefox just wasn't emptying its receive buffer fast enough.

[QUOTE=Wyzard;29926007]I actually did run into a problem like that once, when I needed to transfer a 15GB file over a LAN. I decided to use HTTP instead of SFTP because the overhead of SFTP's crypto actually does make it a bottleneck on a gigabit LAN. IE7 (the latest version at the time) can't download files bigger than 4GB, so I used Firefox, and found that the throughput was much slower than it should've been. I investigated with Wireshark and found that the downloading PC wasn't sending back acknowledgements until several milliseconds after the server had filled up the receive window and stopped sending. So instead of a continuous stream, the transfer was a long stop-start-stop-start pattern, with millisecond pauses every few tens of kilobytes. I tested IE (with a smaller file that it could handle) and it didn't exhibit the problem. That version of Firefox just wasn't emptying its receive buffer fast enough.[/QUOTE] If need to download a big file, I use GNU wget. Usually, it'll be a bit faster then chrome.

[QUOTE=doonbugie2;29903332]oh wait I live in Canada where the internet is extremely expensive. QUICK! EVERYBODY RATE OP DUMB![/QUOTE] What's your bandwidth? Is it more than 300 gigabytes?