[arnes_king]

Originally Posted by TizzyT Yeah you are never going to get the full 1000Mbps throughput, that is normal. There are other things that are a factor to the bottleneck. Like the harddrive will not read/write data at that speed, normally hard drives today read at about 60-80 MBps and writes at about 40-60MBps, off the bat you are limited to about ~40 MBps because that is the slowest speed. Also to note is that the PS3 uses a 2.5 inch HDD so speeds might be even slightly lower, then there are bottlenecks in the system, components, protocols (TCP), and then some latency. So moving down to about 19-20MBps might be normal. I haven't transferred a game in awhile because my PS3 is broke but I think maybe I was getting about the same speeds on my Gigabit connection, only difference is that I was using a crossover cable and not a straight-through. Maybe @KillerBug might tell you what kind of speeds he gets when he connects and transfers using gigabit.... ************* [ - Post Merged - ] ************* PS: yeah I use MBps this time around as I'm more comfortable, plus I was also talking about HDD speeds so it might be kinda confusing switching between the 2.

Yeah, i know that all, and like i said, 25 MBps is enough for me 11 was a little slow but now it's OK


Glad that we figured out the problem and got it working :D

[TizzyT]

Originally Posted by arnes_king Yeah, i know that all, and like i said, 25 MBps is enough for me 11 was a little slow but now it's OK Glad that we figured out the problem and got it working :D

cool man, and have a nice day...glad we could help (whether big or small lol).....

[arnes_king]

Originally Posted by TizzyT cool man, and have a nice day...glad we could help (whether big or small lol).....

Thanks, and thank you again all for your help, especially you because you were helping me a lot :D

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by arnes_king @TizzyT @KillerBug I am now 90% sure that the cable makes me the problem, first, the test showed that only 2 pairs are good, second like i said here are the cables cheap and i didn't saw anywhere cat6 to buy, just this cat5e, and third, they have all like 500 m of the cable in one thing, and then when you buy you say how much you need and they just cut it off and then they use some tool to get the heads on again, that's the problem i think :/ Will see if i can find some shop or service that sells better quality cables

Like I said, check the pairs...I am betting that they didn't cross what would be the grounds on a 100mbps cable.

A good 2.5" hdd can break 50MBPS easy. I have gone over 40MBPS (sustained) on some transfers to a 5000RPM 500GB WD drive, through a gigabit switch, using an Intel hardware NIC, and transferring from a server with a RAID5 array that is capable of over 200MBPS read speeds. HOWEVER, small files drop the average speed significantly, and error checking does as well.

[TizzyT]

Originally Posted by KillerBug Like I said, check the pairs...I am betting that they didn't cross what would be the grounds on a 100mbps cable. A good 2.5" hdd can break 50MBPS easy. I have gone over 40MBPS (sustained) on some transfers to a 5000RPM 500GB WD drive, through a gigabit switch, using an Intel hardware NIC, and transferring from a server with a RAID5 array that is capable of over 200MBPS read speeds. HOWEVER, small files drop the average speed significantly, and error checking does as well.

Hmmm maybe on a good 2.5 HDDs but on the ones laying around my house, they have a sustained read average of about 36 MBps and a max read average of 45 MBps. So considering the read is that low, I can only imagine the write speeds. So yeah the HDD can get to 50MBps considering its a good one. I used HD tune to do the benchmarks and on the one in my broken PS3 (300GB not PS3 stock) I got similar results as well. I didn't do a write because simply I didn't do it...lol. So for me at least I would be capped at a speed somewhere below ~36 MBps due to the HDD write speed because write is usually slower then read.

Hmm I have a raid 0 array with 2 500GB and I get average of ~125MBps (1000Mbps - by coincidence lol), and a max of ~200MBps, But I don't see how having a faster server makes any difference in the final transfer speed as the significant bottleneck is still the write speed of the the destination drive, I might be wrong (can't test because PS3 is broke).

LOL damn you must have a lot of really important stuff to be using a raid 5. I would to for my videos collection but I find raid 5 to be a waste of capacity.

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by TizzyT Hmmm maybe on a good 2.5 HDDs but on the ones laying around my house, they have a sustained read average of about 36 MBps and a max read average of 45 MBps. So considering the read is that low, I can only imagine the write speeds. So yeah the HDD can get to 50MBps considering its a good one. I used HD tune to do the benchmarks and on the one in my broken PS3 (300GB not PS3 stock) I got similar results as well. I didn't do a write because simply I didn't do it...lol. So for me at least I would be capped at a speed somewhere below ~36 MBps due to the HDD write speed because write is usually slower then read. Hmm I have a raid 0 array with 2 500GB and I get average of ~125MBps (1000Mbps - by coincidence lol), and a max of ~200MBps, But I don't see how having a faster server makes any difference in the final transfer speed as the significant bottleneck is still the write speed of the the destination drive, I might be wrong (can't test because PS3 is broke). LOL damn you must have a lot of really important stuff to be using a raid 5. I would to for my videos collection but I find raid 5 to be a waste of capacity.

I find RAID 5 to be very efficient on capacity; only one drive goes to waste. Other forms of live redundancy are far more wasteful. I can't imagine using a PC without live redundancy...if you have documents, videos, or anything else that you wouldn't happily delete for no reason at all, then you need RAID. I am utterly shocked by how many people work without it. Before I left the PC repair business, I encountered 1-2 businesses a week that were just crushed by the failure of a single hard drive...I always felt bad for them, but at the same time, most of them were using 4-5 year old PCs and not doing backups. The only time I really felt bad for anyone in a serious way was one company that had their RAID 5 and their tape backups destroyed by a fire; but then most of the business went up in that blaze.