Timeline for What is the fastest way to send massive amounts of data between two computers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2016 at 14:09 | comment | added | tne | Being extremely pedantic wrt the question as of 2016-01-13, OP only specifies reading 320G from a source drive and although they did mention the target machine has hard drives, there was no mention of what the data "being on the target computer" means. So, while buffering in RAM on the source is irrelevant, buffering in RAM on the target wouldn't be. Technically, this is actually the correct answer, though of course it doesn't capture the real intent as everybody understands it. It's not even useless in all scenarios; maybe we want to free the source machine as fast as possible. | |
| Sep 11, 2015 at 17:36 | comment | added | A.L | HD to RAM to RAM to HD is faster then HD to HD How can it be quicker? | |
| Sep 8, 2015 at 10:58 | comment | added | coteyr | It's a sily amount of RAM in this case so it's not important, but there would be a small speed boost on the sender (as it doesn't have to page to hold the entire dataset) and a huge perceived speed boost on the receiver (as it caches in ram specially on slower drives) | |
| Sep 8, 2015 at 9:23 | comment | added | Stéphane Gourichon | Huge amount of RAM may only help for second and subsequent transfers/recheck of the same data, but won't help at all for the first transfer. | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 12:10 | comment | added | coteyr | Another way to put is that to compress or even just send the entire source drive has to be read in to ram. If it doesn't fit all at once, it has to read a segment, send, discard segment, seek, read segment, etc. If it fits all at once then it just has to read all at one time. Same on the destination. | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 12:07 | comment | added | coteyr | Yep,, ram will buffer for you, and it will seem faster. You can do a HD to HD transfer with RAM buffering all the way and it will seem very fast. It will also take quite a wile to flush to disk, but HD to RAM to RAM to HD is faster then HD to HD. (Keep in mind you have to do HD to RAM to RAM to HD anyway but if you have less then your entire transfer size of RAM you will have to "flush" in segments.) | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 10:07 | comment | added | MichaelS | Not sure this was the intent, but I read it as "any medium slower than RAM to RAM transfer is going to take a while", rather than "buy 400 GB of RAM and your HDD to HDD transfer will go faster". | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 9:39 | comment | added | Skaperen | how does 400G of RAM speed up data transfer? | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 8:27 | history | answered | coteyr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |