# Transferring same file between PC's one direction is faster than the other



## videobruce (Dec 26, 2017)

I hope this is the right place to ask this. here is the situation;

Two PC' s
one a newer tower running Win 7, the other a older laptop running XP Pro
Wired connection thru a router and a 'switch' with no special priorities or restrictions to bandwidth. Both static IP's (if that matters)

The file is a mp4 around 100MB that I chose specifically to test 50' CAT5e jumper cables before I 'fish' them. I used the "move" function from and to the same partitions on both PC's.  All apples to apples.

Using the laptop as the control; from that to the tower speed is fairly steady at 75 Mbps
returning the file, speed is between around 20 to 55 Mbs

Now, the same test, but from the tower; transferring the file from the tower to the Laptop speed varies from 66 to 95 Mbps,
returning the file from the Laptop back to the tower speed is 95 Mbps with a couple drops to 65 Mbps.

*Ok, why is the speed far faster using the tower as the control station than the laptop transferring the exact same file, the exact same way???*


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 27, 2017)

Critical info is being left out. Model and configuration of both computers, IE what hardware devices they each have, CPU's, RAM, NIC, config/settings, ETC. With one being Win7 and the other being XP, there very well could be a settings mismatch that is slowing down receiving of files, but not transmission.

The simple answer, based only on the info provided, is that the desktop is likely more powerful.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 27, 2017)

Laptops are limited by thermals/system specs, power draw, if not plugged in the laptop drops speed to preserve battery life.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 27, 2017)

I'd bet the issue is the laptop having a much slower hard drive.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 27, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> I'd bet the issue is the laptop having a much slower hard drive.


Very possible and indeed likely. Thus why having a detailed list of parts used is helpful in troubleshooting. Any laptop running XP is likely to have a 4200 or 5400 rpm HDD.

Of course it's really more of a curiosity than anything of a real problem as transfers are happening, just varying speeds.


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 27, 2017)

Well if he is talking actual megabits per second and both tests on the tower side are faster I am less inclined that it is the laptop HDD unless it is doing some kind of buffering. That said given the laptops age. and more so the OS. I am inclined to believe that its the network stack itself being that much newer since the tower being newer is commanding the connection requirements for R/W when it is the "host". Though TBH this isnt exactly my cup of tea. My skill set is more geared in networking equipment and not OS stacks.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 27, 2017)

lexluthermiester said:


> Very possible and indeed likely. Thus why having a detailed list of parts used is helpful in troubleshooting. Any laptop running XP is likely to have a 4200 or 5400 rpm HDD.
> 
> Of course it's really more of a curiosity than anything of a real problem as transfers are happening, just varying speeds.



Antimalware and antivirus programs can affect them too


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 27, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> Antimalware and antivirus programs can affect them too



This is very true, and with that since the age difference hardware difference and software difference probably varies so wildly we can realistically only theorize at best. I'm not 100% sure this question can contain a factually based answer since its probably a myriad of different things.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 27, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> This is very true, and with that since the age difference hardware difference and software difference probably varies so wildly we can realistically only theorize at best. I'm not 100% sure this question can contain a factually based answer since its probably a myriad of different things.




There are too many variables between hardware and software used, but typically desktops tend to run full power at all times unless turbocore is used?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 27, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> I'd bet the issue is the laptop having a much slower hard drive.


Bingo. The ability to transfer fast is limited by the receiving station to write the data. Likewise sending from the laptop, the data comes off the drive to be transmitted.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 27, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> Bingo. The ability to transfer fast is limited by the receiving station to write the data. Likewise sending from the laptop, the data comes off the drive to be transmitted.


Of course that raises the question of how much ram the laptop running XP has. Xp caches Network and HDD reads/writes in ram so if the amount of ram is low, the network buffer has to slow down to accommodate the lacking HDD speed. And if the HDD in question has a decent amount of fragmentation, that can slow things down even further.

But to be fair, the speeds the OP stated are not that bad. They could be better, but he did say he was running CAT5e so it's likely that it's only a 100tx connection anyway.


----------



## SomeOne99h (Dec 27, 2017)

http://www.pcwintech.com/increase-network-performance
Maybe you could find some tips there. I am not sure if this is really related to your problem though


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 27, 2017)

newtekie1 said:


> I'd bet the issue is the laptop having a much slower hard drive.


Gonna +1 this.


----------



## videobruce (Dec 27, 2017)

*Too add to the OP that was left out (sorry about that);*
I use BitMeter as a data transfer/Internet monitor tool (it's very similar to DU Meter), I ignore that lame M$ transfer window useless timer.
No active A/V programs running.

Both cards are gigabyte. Win7 is 64 bit, XP Pro sp3 is 32 bit (I forget to add)
Both HDD's are 7200rpm (the laptop does *not* have the original HDD)

To possibly sum this us clearer;
File X transfer from A to B using A as the controler
File X transfer back from B to A using A as the controller

then;
File X transfer from A to B using B as the controller,
File X transfer back from B to A using B as the controller

The ONLY differences are the direction and which PC initiated the command.


Both PC's are AMD based,
*Towe*r has a AMDFX-8350 & a AMD 970A chipset MB. The NIC is a Realtek PCIe GBE. The specific HDD that has the file is a Hitachi 7200rpm HUA723020. (*The O/S is on a SSD*). Memory is 8GB
*Laptop* has a AMD Turion II M600 (the specs doesn't show the MB chipset) The NIC is a Marvell 88E8072. The (only) HDD is a 7200rpm WD WD5000BPKX. Memory is 2GB


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 27, 2017)

videobruce said:


> Memory is 2GB


This is probably the biggest factor. A lot of that OS is using a large portion of the RAM, leaving little room for caching.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 27, 2017)

Couldn't it be chalked up to how the different operating systems manage and prioritize sent and received information?  Id also point out that if OP is using the built-in windows file transfer measuring system to monitor transfer speeds, that it could be flawed there as well, since I've had readings of 900MB/s & other Ludacris readings.instead I would use a timer to gauge the duration of the transfer as opposed to the measurement system windows provides. not that the windows system is bad, but ive had silly readings in the past. Ive found if i begin a transfer, then pause it, and restart it, it will read as 1Gb/s or similar obvious incorrect speeds for the transfers duration, but will still take the same amount of time as if it was running @ 4Mb/s (which it is)


----------



## videobruce (Dec 27, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> This is probably the biggest factor. A lot of that OS is using a large portion of the RAM, leaving little room for caching.


But, how does that explain the huge difference between which machine initiates the transfer?


----------



## Jetster (Dec 27, 2017)

It's the laptop. Try another. It's old and slow.  Write and read speeds are not the same


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 27, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> This is probably the biggest factor. A lot of that OS is using a large portion of the RAM, leaving little room for caching.


With 2GB, XP would be ok on that front. I'm looking more at that Marvell 88E8072 on the XP machine. That series of NIC, IIRC, is known for giving less than great performance in XP. It was designed for Windows Vista and above. Even though there is support for XP, it's not the greatest.


jboydgolfer said:


> Couldn't it be chalked up to how the different operating systems manage and prioritize sent and received information?


Windows XP and 7 are pretty well optimized for talking to each other, but internally they have differences to how they each handle the network stack. That difference might be what is causing the difference in performance. I've actually got several machines and have XP on one of them. Tried the scenario described by videobruce and couldn't replicate it. Transfers over my network only vary by 3 or 4 mbps between the Win 7 system and the Win Xp system, regardless of which one was controlling the transfers. Of course that is on an isolated(no internet access) secondary network but uses a DHCP enabled router.

For giggles, I'm going to try a cross-over cable and see what happens. Stay tuned...

EDIT; just tried it using the cross-over cable, no difference. Based on that test, I'm leaning towards the Marvell NIC on the laptop being the reason for the difference.
@videobruce The thing is, it's working for you, maybe not optimally, but it's working well enough to get the job needed of it done. I wouldn't worry about it. BTW, Thanks for posting this problem, it was a bit of fun to experiment with!


Jetster said:


> It's the laptop. Try another. It's old and slow. Write and read speeds are not the same


Old doesn't mean useless. If it works for what he needs, that's all that matters.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 27, 2017)

I wonder if there is a QoS or limitation enabled in router FW op isnt aware of?

Anyway, this is what i was referring to when I mentioned the win10/7/xp file transfer function & its inaccurate readings i often can get. Ofc, in the example below, i initiated the problem, but only to demonstrate its likliness to display funky speeds at times. It has happened on every pc i have ever tried it on, must be a kink, or overlooked scenario , i dunno, but after doing this, the file will often, never finish transfer.



Spoiler: Windows file transfer


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 27, 2017)

Read speeds and Write speeds make a huge difference in what data transfer is.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 27, 2017)

Jetster said:


> It's the laptop. Try another. It's old and slow.  Write and read speeds are not the same



Turion was from the A64 Days, where as the Desktop is a FX 8350, which is 3 Gens Ahead.

He is overexpecting the laptop to perform fast, however with both being so different in hardware used they will never be the same.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 27, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> I wonder if there is a QoS or limitation enabled in router FW op isnt aware of?
> 
> Anyway, this is what i was referring to when I mentioned the win10/7/xp file transfer function & its inaccurate readings i often can get. Ofc, in the example below, i initiated the problem, but only to demonstrate its likliness to display funky speeds at times. It has happened on every pc i have ever tried it on, must be a kink, or overlooked scenario , i dunno, but after doing this, the file will often, never finish transfer.
> 
> ...


I've heard/read about that. Never seen it in person.


----------



## Jetster (Dec 27, 2017)

I had that issues when I first set up my NAS. It was getting 105 in one direction and 35 in another. Shut off QoS fixed it


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 27, 2017)

1) HDD performance (2 TB 7200 RPM is going to be faster than 500 GB 7200 RPM because of greater density).
2) Operating system differences (XP tends to have a slower network stack than 7).
3) Make sure both networks have full duplex connection.
4) An antivirus can be slowing it on the receiving end because it's scanning the incoming packets.
5) If there's a domain controller on the network, I've seen them tank Windows file transfer performance unless it's to/from the domain controller.
6) Turion is a very slow processor and, because it doesn't have a hardware NIC controller, the processor can negatively impact file transfers.
7) Pushing file transfers (sending to) is always going to be faster than requesting transfers (receiving from).

My money is on #2.  XP's netcode is atrocious.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 27, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> XP's netcode is atrocious.  Most likely it is to blame.  They significantly revamped it in Vista and have been continuously improving it through 10 today.



Considering how unsecure XP was then id upgrade every xp machine to 7 32bit at the least.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 27, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 2) Operating system differences (XP tends to have a slower network stack than 7).





FordGT90Concept said:


> My money is on #2. XP's netcode is atrocious.


The test I ran, just a little while ago, did not show that. The way XP handles the network stack is DIFFERENT from 7, not necessarily slower. In fact my XP machine dual boots XP and 7, has a gigabit NIC and it gets the same transfer rates that Win7 does. XP isn't problem.


FordGT90Concept said:


> 6) Turion is a very slow processor and, because it doesn't have a hardware NIC controller, the processor can negatively impact file transfers.


That could be part of the problem, though with 2GB of ram, I kinda doubt it.


FordGT90Concept said:


> 7) Pushing file transfers (sending to) is always going to be faster than requesting transfers (receiving from).


That's not true either. Transferring files depends more on the hardware and software doing the job rather than which system is pushing/pulling the data.


eidairaman1 said:


> Considering how insecure XP was then id upgrade every xp machine to 7 32bit at the least.


Oh goodness. Can we let that non-sense go already? I currently use my XP machine to get on the internet. Properly configured, XP is fine. And it's likely going to stay that way because malware is not specifically targeting it anymore. And even if they do, if you use a good firewall/HIPS/antivirus/antimalware suite, things are ok. Most of the *good* ones still support XP.

EDIT; This edit was typed in using said XP machine.


----------



## videobruce (Dec 27, 2017)

Jetster said:


> It's the laptop. Try another. It's old and slow.  Write and read speeds are not the same


You mean it's like me "old & slow'? 
Before anyone asks, the reason it's still running XP is I have a couple of pieces of test equipment that needs XP to use the associated software. The Laptop originally came with Win7 but had available XP drivers for it which was why I choose that model. *It's a HP Probook 6545b*

I'm more than aware of the performance difference between the two devices. Again, what I don't understand why the difference between which machine initiates the transfer. I don't use it often. I only discovered this testing those cables.


----------



## Jetster (Dec 27, 2017)

Yeah next logical step would be to try another PC for testing the connections


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 27, 2017)

Computer A is 1000BaseT where computer B is 100BaseT. Thats my thought on the matter


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 27, 2017)

Jetster said:


> Yeah next logical step would be to try another PC for testing the connections


Thinking at this point, it's academic.


CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Computer A is 1000BaseT where computer B is 100BaseT. Thats my thought on the matter


But if they're direct connected the faster system will sync down to the slower speed.
EDIT, just re-read the OP, nevermind.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 27, 2017)

lexluthermiester said:


> But if they're direct connected the faster system will sync down to the slower speed.


Resulting in the slower transfer times the OP is experiencing.


----------



## videobruce (Dec 27, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> I wonder if there is a QoS or limitation enabled in router FW op isnt aware of?
> Anyway, this is what i was referring to when I mentioned the win10/7/xp file transfer function & its inaccurate readings i often can get. Ofc, in the example below, i initiated the problem, but only to demonstrate its likliness to display funky speeds at times..


No Qos or limitation set.
Regarding M$'s file transfer, I did mention I use BitMeter which seems to be reliable as to the readings.



eidairaman1 said:


> Turion was from the A64 Days, where as the Desktop is a FX 8350, which is 3 Gens Ahead.
> He is overexpecting the laptop to perform fast, however with both being so different in hardware used they will never be the same.


I can assure you I'm not over expecting anything from the Laptop. I know it's a 'weak' processor. It's this *huge* variation in speeds. From as low as 11Mbps to 95Mbps to a almost constant 95Mbps depending on which of the 4 version of transfer I preformed.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 27, 2017)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Resulting in the slower transfer times the OP is experiencing.


Um, see the edit.. 


videobruce said:


> I can assure you I'm not over expecting anything from the Laptop. I know it's a 'weak' processor. It's this *huge* variation in speeds. From as low as 11Mbps to 95Mbps to a almost constant 95Mbps depending on which of the 4 version of transfer I preformed.


Still think it's the Marvell NIC. Not that there is anything wrong with it by design, just that it's Win XP drivers are weak. I'd bet real money on it.


----------



## bonehead123 (Dec 27, 2017)

IF either system has any RGB lighting, just turn it off or remove it altogether, cause I've heard that it can suck up alot of network and system resources HAHAHAHA.....

*just kidding of course *


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 27, 2017)

bonehead123 said:


> IF either system has any RGB lighting, just turn it off or remove it altogether, cause I've heard that it can suck up alot of network and system resources HAHAHAHA.....
> 
> *just kidding of course *


Wait now, Red LED's are alright because they're low spectrum..


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 27, 2017)

bonehead123 said:


> IF either system has any RGB lighting, just turn it off or remove it altogether, cause I've heard that it can suck up alot of network and system resources HAHAHAHA.....


Where's the dislike button when you need it?


----------



## videobruce (Dec 27, 2017)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Computer A is 1000BaseT where computer B is 100BaseT. Thats my thought on the matter


Are you referring to the NIC or something else?


bonehead123 said:


> IF either system has any RGB lighting, just turn it off or remove it altogether


*Man, bite your tougue! *I don't game, or even have a 'clear' panel enclosure.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 27, 2017)

videobruce said:


> Are you referring to the NIC or something else?


The NIC. 

I think I saw this being asked somewhere else but im at work and a bit scatter brained atm, but have you checked to make sure that the NIC settings in Windows for the XP machine are correct? Updated to the latest drivers?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 27, 2017)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Computer A is 1000BaseT where computer B is 100BaseT. Thats my thought on the matter


I just realized his figures are in bits.  Considering the age of the Turion label and that it is a laptop, this is likely.

Edit: Marvell 88E8072 is a gigabit chip.

Edit: Could be switch/router is only 10/100


----------



## videobruce (Dec 27, 2017)

Both NIC's are Gigabyte.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 27, 2017)

What network equipment is between them, if anything?


----------



## DRDNA (Dec 27, 2017)

try swapping out the Gigabyte Nics to opposite PC's and see if that makes a difference......


----------



## videobruce (Dec 27, 2017)

A TP-Link WDR3600 Router running openwrt (for now) and a Trendnet TE100S8 'Switch'.

How does one take two MB mounted NIC's and switch them?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 27, 2017)

Trendnet TE100S8 <- there's your problem: it's 10/100:
http://www.trendnet.com/products/proddetail?prod=400_TE100-S8&cat=114



videobruce said:


> How does one take two MB mounted NIC's and switch them?


Crossover cable and assigned IP addresses.  Not recommended.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 27, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Trendnet TE100S8 <- there's you're problem: it's 10/100:
> http://www.trendnet.com/products/proddetail?prod=400_TE100-S8&cat=114


Called it!


----------



## qubit (Dec 27, 2017)

You wouldn't think a HDD could bottleneck a 100Mb/s network, but it can. I noticed a speed up when I replaced it with an SSD.


----------



## videobruce (Dec 27, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Crossover cable and assigned IP addresses.  Not recommended.


He was talking about moving the network cards from one PC to another. One is a Laptop, the other is a Tower, both with board mounted network chipsets.


qubit said:


> You wouldn't think a HDD could bottleneck a 100mb/s network, but it can. I noticed a speed up when I replaced it with an SSD.


That doesn't explain the speed variances, only the top speed.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 27, 2017)

100 Mbps ~= 12 MBps
1000 Mbps ~= 120 MBps

I had hard drives back in 2000 that could handle 40 MBps.  Modern hard drives operate in excess of 150 MBps which can saturate a gigabit network.  This is why there is a growing push to go beyond gigabit.

You're undeniably being bottlenecked by that switch.  Until that's fixed, you won't be seeing over your stated ~95 Mbps.


----------



## videobruce (Dec 27, 2017)

Understood, but I don't need a GT90.  New switch ordered.


----------

