Searching \ for '[OT] Backup server OS-Soft combination.' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=backup+server+soft
Search entire site for: 'Backup server OS-Soft combination.'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Backup server OS-Soft combination.'
2009\06\01@112352 by Carlos Marcano

picon face
Hi, guys/(gals?)

This is a little bit off topic but I will give it a try. I have
recently upgraded my computer and built another one with the spare
parts. My main box configuration is: Phenom II 720 BE cpu, Xigmatek
hdt-s1283 air cooler, Biostar TA790GX 128M Mobo,  2x2gb crucial
ballistix ram, 2 32mb cache WD Black sataII 500gb HDs, Intel PCI-x
1000 PT Lan card. This box is mainly used as a "transcoding" server; I
am using a nice piece of software called PS3 Media Server
(unfortunatly known as "pms media server") to transcode and stream my
backed up blu-rays and other hd content (ussually in x264 format) to a
Playstation 3 used as a media front-end in the family room. Everything
is wired via gigabit ethernet through a a dir-655 router. All this is
working fine for me (although I could "enable" the fourth core from
the cpu and have it boosted from 2.8 to 3.0 Ghz, I am still wanting to
get more mhz from the overclocking of the cpu, any enthusiasts
around?).

The other box is configured as this: Phenom II 720 BE cpu, Thermaltake
Big Typhon cooler, MSI k9a2gm 780g Mobo, 2x2gb corsair ram, 2 16mb
cache samsung 500gb HDs, Intel PCI-x 1000 PT Lan card. It is currently
overclocked to 3.3 Ghz stable (I could go farther but need better
airflow inside the case). I have been tweaking it just for fun, but
the real use for it as I have been thinking lately is as a backup
server. I want to be able to quickly copy a 4 to 8 gb HD backup from
this server to the transcoding server to stream media from this one. I
might also want to use both boxes as a a recoding cluster (maybe using
x264-farm software) but that would be a plus. I would like to know of
your ideas reagrding the combination of OS and software I should use
for this backup server. If needed I could even do re-arrangements in
the hardware between both of the boxes if things would benefit any of
the configurations as intended.

Thanks in advance for you help.

Regards,

Carlos.

2009\06\01@120807 by Rolf

flavicon
face
Carlos Marcano wrote:
> Hi, guys/(gals?)
>
> This is a little bit off topic but I will give it a try. I have
> recently upgraded my computer ...

Hi Carlos.

When it comes to this sort of thing, everyone has opinions.... and mine
are biased toward open source...

Regardless. I also have a pragmatic bent, and I use the OS that is most
convenient for the task at hand (i.e. I have XP, Vista, and a few Linux
machines at home).

Some comments. It is good that you have the Pro1000PT net cards on the
systems. These were the only cards I was able to afford (they are not
cheap), and get to successfully work with gigabit *and* Jumbo Frames. I
don't do video, but I have a large photo collection and often shift
large amounts of data between the (Linux) file-server, and the (Vista)
photo-editing workstation. These net cards are very stable and have no
problem with Jumbo frames even between the two OS's (the cheaper D-Link
cards claim Jumbo-Frame support, but had driver issues on linux when
they had been operating for a week or so - specifically when it could
not allocate 4 contiguous memory pages from the kernel).

If you want fast (fastest) transfer rates between the machines you will
need to use RAID drives to read and write data to (i.e. with only 2
disks on each machine you are going to need RAID0 (no redundancy... so I
would perhaps recommend more disks ... ;-). I have only 1 disk in the
vista machine, and hence I max out at about 29MB/s as the data gets
written to/read from the machine (but I have benchmarked the network at
78MB/s using a Java network socket to the 'bit bucket').

Storage options for the Linux OS are more compatible and stable than any
other Windows offering. There is no single Windows OS version that has
as complete a set of storage/connection options as Linux. I would
recommend that you consider these options before you commit to any one
solution.

Further, the Software RAID, and Logical Volume Management options on
Linux are competitive with the best commercial offerings available (even
if the configuration is not quite idiot-proof ;-)

Backup options for linux are very comprehensive as well. I use a clever
script around the rsync command to get a very comprehensive system
available. There are slicker choices too.

Finally, if you do decide you want to do some 'clustering' of your
transcoding, then having the same OS on both machines will be
significantly advantageous. Further, when you decide to do more smart
network things, like mail, web, time, etc. services you will have all
the infrastructure in place to do these things smoothly.

Bottom line... use linux where you can, and only rely on MS products
where your choices/convenience are compromized. This way you will be as
stable, flexible, and as future-proof as pragmatic.

When you get Myth-TV going, drop us a line and tell us how it works for
you ;-)

Thanks

Rolf

2009\06\01@153355 by Carlos Marcano

picon face
On 01/06/2009, Rolf <spam_OUTrolfTakeThisOuTspamtuis.net> wrote:
> When it comes to this sort of thing, everyone has opinions.... and mine
> are biased toward open source...

I am on the same boat... but there are situations where this is a no-no.

> Regardless. I also have a pragmatic bent, and I use the OS that is most
> convenient for the task at hand (i.e. I have XP, Vista, and a few Linux
> machines at home).

As before, same here.

{Quote hidden}

I made an extensive research on this matter and I am pleased that you
agree with my choice. Although, I have not done any extensive testing
but I will soon, I hope.

> If you want fast (fastest) transfer rates between the machines you will
> need to use RAID drives to read and write data to (i.e. with only 2
> disks on each machine you are going to need RAID0 (no redundancy... so I
> would perhaps recommend more disks ... ;-). I have only 1 disk in the
> vista machine, and hence I max out at about 29MB/s as the data gets
> written to/read from the machine (but I have benchmarked the network at
> 78MB/s using a Java network socket to the 'bit bucket').

On the newer machine, I installed the WD Black hard disk's in RAID0
configuration, just for testing because it is a clean, no production,
box yet. It is on Vista :( and I can still manage to see a big
improvement on data transfer. I might consider keeping the RAID0 but
under Linux and do daily backups to the other machine to prevent any
data loss due the RAID0. Would going RAID5 or RAID 0+1/1+0 be a better
option?

> Storage options for the Linux OS are more compatible and stable than any
> other Windows offering. There is no single Windows OS version that has
> as complete a set of storage/connection options as Linux. I would
> recommend that you consider these options before you commit to any one
> solution.

I will certainly consider them.

>
> Further, the Software RAID, and Logical Volume Management options on
> Linux are competitive with the best commercial offerings available (even
> if the configuration is not quite idiot-proof ;-)

Checked.

> Backup options for linux are very comprehensive as well. I use a clever
> script around the rsync command to get a very comprehensive system
> available. There are slicker choices too.

Checked.

> Finally, if you do decide you want to do some 'clustering' of your
> transcoding, then having the same OS on both machines will be
> significantly advantageous.

I have done some research and there doesn't seem to be too many video
encoding for clusters. This one looks promising but I fear for the
lack of support:

http://www.codergrid.de/

It is multiplatform but I can see the advantages of using the same OS
for the multiple nodes.

> Further, when you decide to do more smart
> network things, like mail, web, time, etc. services you will have all
> the infrastructure in place to do these things smoothly.

Checked.

> Bottom line... use linux where you can, and only rely on MS products
> where your choices/convenience are compromized. This way you will be as
> stable, flexible, and as future-proof as pragmatic.

I agree with you.

> When you get Myth-TV going, drop us a line and tell us how it works for
> you ;-)

I took a look at Myth-TV once but I didn't like it too much. I prefer
to use my PS3 as the front-end, and the pc as the media streamer using
"PS3 media server" which, by the way, isn't sony related and, being
Java based, is multiplataform too.

> Thanks
>
> Rolf

Thanks a lot for your time and effort Rolf. Greatly appreciated!

Regards,

Carlos.

2009\06\01@154741 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:03:54 -0430, "Carlos Marcano"
<.....c.marcanoKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> said:

> On the newer machine, I installed the WD Black hard disk's in RAID0
> configuration, just for testing because it is a clean, no production,
> box yet. It is on Vista :( and I can still manage to see a big
> improvement on data transfer. I might consider keeping the RAID0 but
> under Linux and do daily backups to the other machine to prevent any
> data loss due the RAID0. Would going RAID5 or RAID 0+1/1+0 be a better
> option?

If you need speed then anything other than RAID 0 is going to slow you
down unless you use a fast RAID controller card. And in my limited
experience I have tried RAID 5 and later changed to RAID 1 because
recovery is easier with RAID 1 and also RAID 5 is very slow when in
degraded mode.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class

2009\06\01@160646 by Carlos Marcano

picon face
On 01/06/2009, Bob Blick <bobblickspamKILLspamftml.net> wrote:

> If you need speed then anything other than RAID 0 is going to slow you
> down unless you use a fast RAID controller card. And in my limited
> experience I have tried RAID 5 and later changed to RAID 1 because
> recovery is easier with RAID 1 and also RAID 5 is very slow when in
> degraded mode.

So, it might be better to keep one machine with the RAID0 array and
backup things into the non-RAID box for a balanced solution? I would
like to have the reading performance from RAID0 but I don't want to
suffer the consecuences of this non-redundant conf (I have read tons
of horror stories on line on this regard), so I think that using the
other computer for backup would be a wise solution, plus in terms of
scalability would be simpler to add hard disks when I begin to be
short in space... but as often in the past, I could ve veeeryyyy wrong
:)

Now, giving it  a deeper thought I believe that I would need some data
checksum and integrity check system for the data transfers to the
backup machine...

> Cheerful regards,
>
> Bob

Thanks, Bob.

Regards,

Carlos.

2009\06\01@165528 by Rolf

flavicon
face
Carlos Marcano wrote:
{Quote hidden}

With more disks, RAID5 will be faster than a single disk. My experience
is in the two extremes of performance, with machines using no raid (or
recently my home machines wiht some RAID1 and some RAID0), and other
machines using 28 disks in massive SAN configurations. I don't have
experience in the 'just a few' RAID 5 disks. I do know tha 14 disks in
RAID5 configuration will saturate a 10Gigabit SAN connection ... ;-)

RAID1+0 (or 0+1) will give added performance benefits, but it is
space-expensive. On the other hand disk space it is relatively cheap.

With the RAID01 RAID10, there are differences and I forget which one is
better (almost always you want to use the one rather than the other....
but I forget which. Check in to it.).

Rolf

2009\06\01@172548 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Carlos Marcano <EraseMEc.marcanospam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

> All this is
> working fine for me (although I could "enable" the fourth core from
> the cpu and have it boosted from 2.8 to 3.0 Ghz,
>

I am not fan of clockspeed gigantomagic as this is only a small part of the
overall speed. You can run some nice testing software that will be telling
you how fast is your repetitive integer calculation, but then what? You need
to take care of your front bus speed, your memory to be nicely balanced, get
a motherboard that have more than one memory buses, a better cpu that has
nigger cache, more core inside etc... BTW in Playstation 3 you have 6 or 7
core -- in some application it is really nice like and some people you it as
building a super computer.

With RAID0: If your files are small ones then RAID0 is not faster than a
single disk. It is because the file cannot be sparsed through your disk sets
if it's smaller than the cluster size. Also is your file is like 3 times
longer than this then you will have 2 parts in one disk and 1 part in the
other, so you will have a 1/2 speed up. For making it more complex
everything depends on your filesystem too, as the file might not be on a
continuous space -- it could happen that the file is so badly fragmented
that it lays off only (or mostly) on one disk. RAID0 could perform well on
large files, but it is not a guarantee as you can see.

Anyway, I am not sure about RAID10 but I used RAID1 with LVM years before
and it performed very well. BTW those disks were 15krpm wide SCSI ones, so
again, if you are up to the speedy mania then it would be better to look for
a nice controller and disks instead of thinking too much on software woodoo.

Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\06\01@173830 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:54:38 -0400, "Rolf" <rolfspamspam_OUTtuis.net> said:
> Carlos Marcano wrote:
> > On 01/06/2009, Bob Blick <@spam@bobblickKILLspamspamftml.net> wrote:
> >> If you need speed then anything other than RAID 0 is going to slow you
> >> down unless you use a fast RAID controller card. And in my limited
> >> experience I have tried RAID 5 and later changed to RAID 1 because
> >> recovery is easier with RAID 1 and also RAID 5 is very slow when in
> >> degraded mode.

> With more disks, RAID5 will be faster than a single disk. My experience
> is in the two extremes of performance, with machines using no raid (or
> recently my home machines wiht some RAID1 and some RAID0), and other
> machines using 28 disks in massive SAN configurations. I don't have
> experience in the 'just a few' RAID 5 disks. I do know tha 14 disks in
> RAID5 configuration will saturate a 10Gigabit SAN connection ... ;-)

I don't think anything I said was contradicting this. My experience has
been with both software and hardware RAID, and I found software RAID 5
to be slower than software RAID 1(and slower still in degraded mode) and
recovery options are more limited. With a good RAID controller card,
RAID 5 is going to be fast. But it still is going to be harder to
recover data from it than a RAID 1 array. Imagine a controller card or
motherboard failure. I know that is what backups are for, but it's nice
to have two Plan B's.

Cheers,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service

2009\06\02@090906 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Carlos Marcano wrote:

> Now, giving it  a deeper thought I believe that I would need some data
> checksum and integrity check system for the data transfers to the
> backup machine...

Use ftp -- that's what it's for ("file transfer protocol" :)

Gerhard

2009\06\02@094937 by Carlos Marcano

picon face
On 02/06/2009, Gerhard Fiedler <KILLspamlistsKILLspamspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:

> Use ftp -- that's what it's for ("file transfer protocol" :)

Thanks for the tip!

Would ftp be too much slower than just doing copy/paste through
samba-windows networking-whatever?

Or on the opposite it won't slow things down?

Thanks again, Gerhard.

Regards,

Carlos.

2009\06\02@140714 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Carlos Marcano wrote:

>> Use ftp -- that's what it's for ("file transfer protocol" :)
>
> Thanks for the tip!
>
> Would ftp be too much slower than just doing copy/paste through
> samba-windows networking-whatever?
>
> Or on the opposite it won't slow things down?

I don't think that it slows things down. The protocol overhead is
minimal. For small files, it could be faster than copy and paste.

Gerhard

2009\06\02@141556 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Gerhard Fiedler
<RemoveMElistsTakeThisOuTspamconnectionbrazil.com>wrote:

> > Would ftp be too much slower than just doing copy/paste through
> > samba-windows networking-whatever?
> >
> > Or on the opposite it won't slow things down?
>
> I don't think that it slows things down. The protocol overhead is
> minimal. For small files, it could be faster than copy and paste.


FTP is quite bad actually when you have small files. It is better to use an
archiver so that you will have only a bigger file (or several bigger chunks)
to transfer.

Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\06\03@010439 by Carlos Marcano

picon face
Thank you all for the tips. In about 1-2 weeks I will finish laying
everything on and will report back with my experiences!

Regards,

Carlos.

2009/6/2 Tamas Rudnai <spamBeGonetamas.rudnaispamBeGonespamgmail.com>:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\06\03@100351 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:

>>> Would ftp be too much slower than just doing copy/paste through
>>> samba-windows networking-whatever?
>>>
>>> Or on the opposite it won't slow things down?
>>
>> I don't think that it slows things down. The protocol overhead is
>> minimal. For small files, it could be faster than copy and paste.
>
> FTP is quite bad actually when you have small files. It is better to
> use an archiver so that you will have only a bigger file (or several
> bigger chunks) to transfer.

The OP wanted it compared to copy and paste (with something like Windows
Explorer, I assumed) -- and ftp is probably better than that.

Besides, this is a local gigabit connection. The time to archive the
files first is not to be underestimated. Disk throughput may be slower
than network throughput, and archiving the files first means you have to
transfer them four times instead of two times from/to disk -- with lots
of head movements. With this connection and a good ftp server/client
combo, it may be the disk that's limiting the throughput, and archiving
first would just add another step as overhead and be in fact slower.

Gerhard

2009\06\03@160315 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 10:09 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Carlos Marcano wrote:
>
> > Now, giving it  a deeper thought I believe that I would need some data
> > checksum and integrity check system for the data transfers to the
> > backup machine...
>
> Use ftp -- that's what it's for ("file transfer protocol" :)

I'd much prefer sftp. You don't need to run anything "special" server,
as long as your machine has an SSH server sftp will work.

Beyond everything else, it's much more secure then ftp.

TTYL

2009\06\03@161246 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 09:18 -0430, Carlos Marcano wrote:
> On 02/06/2009, Gerhard Fiedler <RemoveMElistsspamTakeThisOuTconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
>
> > Use ftp -- that's what it's for ("file transfer protocol" :)
>
> Thanks for the tip!
>
> Would ftp be too much slower than just doing copy/paste through
> samba-windows networking-whatever?
>
> Or on the opposite it won't slow things down?

This depends.

The problem is when you say "windows file sharing" there are so many
variables that make it very hard to say which will be faster. I will say
that ftp will be consistent across platforms speed wise. It has quite a
minimal overhead (it's designed for file transfer alone after all).

If you have tons of small files I'd say FTP would usually be faster. For
big files it'll probably be a wash, although be aware that there are
incompatibilities in samba clients. For example, copying from my Vista
machine to Ubuntu 8.04 was painfully slow over samba.

TTYL

2009\06\03@162646 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:06:08 -0400, "Herbert Graf" <hkgrafEraseMEspam.....gmail.com>
said:

> The problem is when you say "windows file sharing" there are so many
> variables that make it very hard to say which will be faster. I will say
> that ftp will be consistent across platforms speed wise. It has quite a
> minimal overhead (it's designed for file transfer alone after all).
>
> If you have tons of small files I'd say FTP would usually be faster. For
> big files it'll probably be a wash, although be aware that there are
> incompatibilities in samba clients. For example, copying from my Vista
> machine to Ubuntu 8.04 was painfully slow over samba.

I found a huge difference in speed copying between two machines
depending on operating systems and versions. Linux to Linux using Samba
was always slower by a factor >2 than Windows XP to Windows XP or
Windows XP to Linux. On the other hand, Windows XP always seemed to
double-buffer, so after the files transferred, there was a wait time as
it did an internal copy or move.

But the speed was never superfast so after a little bit of testing I
gave up in disgust and decided to pretend it doesn't matter.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin

2009\06\03@163837 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 13:26 -0700, Bob Blick wrote:
> I found a huge difference in speed copying between two machines
> depending on operating systems and versions. Linux to Linux using Samba
> was always slower by a factor >2 than Windows XP to Windows XP or
> Windows XP to Linux. On the other hand, Windows XP always seemed to
> double-buffer, so after the files transferred, there was a wait time as
> it did an internal copy or move.
>
> But the speed was never superfast so after a little bit of testing I
> gave up in disgust and decided to pretend it doesn't matter.

For linux->linux transfers I use NFS (in linux it really is just another
file system, setup is trivial), which is miles faster then samba on a
low latency network, even more so when dealing with really small files.

Still, when you are dealing with 10s or 100s of thousands of small files
I either do the operation on the machine in question locally, or archive
it up before transferring.

TTYL

2009\06\03@172657 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

>> Carlos Marcano wrote:
>>
>>> Now, giving it  a deeper thought I believe that I would need some
>>> data checksum and integrity check system for the data transfers to
>>> the backup machine...
>>
>> Use ftp -- that's what it's for ("file transfer protocol" :)
>
> I'd much prefer sftp. You don't need to run anything "special"
> server, as long as your machine has an SSH server sftp will work.
>
> Beyond everything else, it's much more secure then ftp.

This seems to be a mixed environment (Carlos wrote "samba" :), and an
ssh server is more "special" :) on Windows than an ftp server. And since
this is a wired LAN, security is not an issue. So in this situation, ftp
-- with all its drawbacks -- is probably quite a viable choice for file
transfer.

Gerhard

2009\06\03@180239 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 18:26 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
>
> >> Carlos Marcano wrote:
> >>
> >>> Now, giving it  a deeper thought I believe that I would need some
> >>> data checksum and integrity check system for the data transfers to
> >>> the backup machine...
> >>
> >> Use ftp -- that's what it's for ("file transfer protocol" :)
> >
> > I'd much prefer sftp. You don't need to run anything "special"
> > server, as long as your machine has an SSH server sftp will work.
> >
> > Beyond everything else, it's much more secure then ftp.
>
> This seems to be a mixed environment (Carlos wrote "samba" :), and an
> ssh server is more "special" :) on Windows than an ftp server.

I disagree here. Even on windows, a ftp server needs to be installed, so
whether you do that or an ssh server doesn't really change anything
IMHO. As for clients, yes, windows has a built in ftp client, but it is
beyond horrid IMHO.

> And since
> this is a wired LAN, security is not an issue.

Why? Just because it's wired doesn't mean it's secure. Is there a WAP on
the network? FTP is plain text, running a packet sniffer I can get your
full login credentials, and chances are, as with most people, those
credentials will work for many more things then just the local FTP
server.

The additional work for SSH is zero, there is no excuse IMHO. Even if
you think there is additional work, I'd rate it as well worth the
effort.

> So in this situation, ftp
> -- with all its drawbacks -- is probably quite a viable choice for file
> transfer.

FTP is an ancient protocol which IMHO should never be used anymore. Just
my opinion. TTYL

2009\06\03@180249 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Gerhard Fiedler <EraseMElistsspamconnectionbrazil.com
> wrote:

> And since
> this is a wired LAN, security is not an issue. So in this situation, ftp
> -- with all its drawbacks -- is probably quite a viable choice for file
> transfer.
>

If that is really not an issue you may can also consider tftp. As my best
knowledge tftp can perform faster on low latency networks than ftp but I
might wrong.

Tamas
--
http://www.mcuhobby.com

2009\06\03@225821 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Herbert Graf wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Rsync is probably his best bet, Its what it was designed for anyway,
backups, and you can get windows clients easily and you don't need to
have "servers" running 24/7
He can just rsync the whole directory he wants to copy (turn compression
off or down to 1, it'll make it slower) It'll handle all the small files
he wants nice and speedy and then when he wants to do his next backup
it'll only transfer the differences.
{Quote hidden}

Actually unless the AP is doing something silly its not going to
broadcast packets unrelated to stuff happening on the wire.
You have to get into mac address spoofing and all sorts of things like
that and that's after you have hacked the (hopefully decent) wpa2
encryption on the link.
If somebody is going to that level your screwed anyway.

> The additional work for SSH is zero, there is no excuse IMHO. Even if
> you think there is additional work, I'd rate it as well worth the
> effort.
>  
Its going to slow the transfer pretty dramatically though. All that
encryption has a pretty heavy overhead.

{Quote hidden}

2009\06\04@065103 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Bob Blick wrote:

> On the other hand, Windows XP always seemed to double-buffer, so after
> the files transferred, there was a wait time as it did an internal
> copy or move.

What do you mean by "Windows seemed to double-buffer"? Doesn't this
depend on the program you're using for transfer whether it
double-buffers? How did you transfer the files?

Gerhard

2009\06\04@081421 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
> On the other hand, Windows XP always seemed to double-buffer, so after
> the files transferred, there was a wait time as it did an internal
> copy or move.

Oh, you mean you observed it caching files in memory, to get the speed up,
then writing from memory to disk? Standard way for many OS's to work, not
just Windows.

2009\06\04@123849 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:14:20 +0100, "Alan B. Pearce"
<RemoveMEAlan.B.PearceEraseMEspamEraseMEstfc.ac.uk> said:
> > On the other hand, Windows XP always seemed to double-buffer, so after
> > the files transferred, there was a wait time as it did an internal
> > copy or move.
>
> Oh, you mean you observed it caching files in memory, to get the speed
> up,
> then writing from memory to disk? Standard way for many OS's to work, not
> just Windows.

No, the files appear temporarily in some subdirectory under "documents
and settings".

-Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free

2009\06\04@124257 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:50:56 -0300, "Gerhard Fiedler"
<RemoveMElistsspam_OUTspamKILLspamconnectionbrazil.com> said:
> Bob Blick wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, Windows XP always seemed to double-buffer, so after
> > the files transferred, there was a wait time as it did an internal
> > copy or move.
>
> What do you mean by "Windows seemed to double-buffer"? Doesn't this
> depend on the program you're using for transfer whether it
> double-buffers? How did you transfer the files?

The "fast" methods of copying(scp, ftp) seem to copy the files quickly
to a temporary location under "documents and settings", then move to the
desired location. The "slow" methods of copying (samba) either
double-buffer silently or just copy very slowly. The net result is about
the same amount of time.

But as I said before, I don't pay much attention to it, I just accept
whatever it does. Spending hours of time making computers save a few
seconds here or there is no longer fun for me. I don't think it ever
was, I just don't do it any more.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                         unladen european swallow

2009\06\04@144631 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:58 +1000, Jake Anderson wrote:
> > Why? Just because it's wired doesn't mean it's secure. Is there a WAP on
> > the network? FTP is plain text, running a packet sniffer I can get your
> > full login credentials, and chances are, as with most people, those
> > credentials will work for many more things then just the local FTP
> > server.
> >  
> Actually unless the AP is doing something silly its not going to
> broadcast packets unrelated to stuff happening on the wire.
> You have to get into mac address spoofing and all sorts of things like
> that and that's after you have hacked the (hopefully decent) wpa2
> encryption on the link.
> If somebody is going to that level your screwed anyway.

MAC address spoofing is trivial (on Linux). Tools for basically
automating that and everything else are plentiful, free, and easy to
get. I have a bootable USB key in my bag with a version of Backtrack
that pretty much has everything you need.

Doesn't need to be that hard anyways. Just bought a new WiFi router?
Most people plug it into their network and then configure it. What if
the phone rings and you forget that you never actually set up security?
Default password lists are out there for everyone to see.

There are tons of exploits for consumer routers, that's assuming the
router has been secured to begin with.

I'm not saying a person should be paranoid, but BASIC security is free
these days, there's no excuse in my mind not to use it.

> > The additional work for SSH is zero, there is no excuse IMHO. Even if
> > you think there is additional work, I'd rate it as well worth the
> > effort.
> >  
> Its going to slow the transfer pretty dramatically though. All that
> encryption has a pretty heavy overhead.

Perhaps in the old days. These days, with modern multicore CPUs over my
gigabit network the hit is pretty much negligible.

TTYL

2009\06\04@175420 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:

>>> The additional work for SSH is zero, there is no excuse IMHO. Even
>>> if you think there is additional work, I'd rate it as well worth
>>> the effort.
>>>
>> Its going to slow the transfer pretty dramatically though. All that
>> encryption has a pretty heavy overhead.
>
> Perhaps in the old days. These days, with modern multicore CPUs over
> my gigabit network the hit is pretty much negligible.

Are you sure? While of course multicore CPUs work towards making the
impact smaller, the step from a 100Mbps to 1Gbps network works towards
making the impact bigger. Given enough disk throughput, the CPUs have
now ten times (well, maybe not ten times) as much to do to transfer the
data.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...