0
I wil ask it in another way: If I want to transfer via LAN a rather big number (say 1.000) of rather small (say 10 bytes) files (total 10KB size), should I get better results in a 1Gbps LAN network than the expected one in a 100Mbps LAN?
I know that 1 Gbps LANs offer a bigger data throughput for big files, but maybe the extra data (sync, CRC, error check... etc) needed for each file (drastically increased when sending many files) will make the more expensive Gbps infrastructure a waste of money?
Of course, rather than knowing if the answer is yes or no, this question would like some explanation about the logic behind why yes or why not.
P.S: is it correct to call this feature latency of the network? If not, we could correct the title.
Sopalajo de Arrierez
Posted 2015-07-12T13:03:49.473
Reputation: 5 328
I think this is only answerable by practical testing? Fire up two machines, create two ram disks, eg 2 gb, put a few million files on it which are very small. now transfer them on a 100mbit full duplex connection by forcing adapters in the settings to this speed, then force them to go 1gbps full duplex. Report results here ;) You may be able to eliminate the network device factor out if you use two virtual machines, though this will require a beefy machine with lots of ram and a powerfull cpu (you don't want a cpu bottlenecking your results, nor adapters causing a bottleneck) – Gizmo – 2015-07-12T13:11:07.283
As for the results, I expect the 1gpbs network to transfer everything faster as most bottlenecks caused by many files transfering is because HDD's are bottlenecking. As for responsiveness, it's connection quality, so latency will be the same on all 1gbps, 100mbit and 10mbit. – Gizmo – 2015-07-12T13:15:53.987
@Gizmo, that didn't make sense. If the bottleneck is the HDD, then a faster network isn't going to help. – psusi – 2015-07-12T13:56:09.277