Try TFTP, that uses UDP instead - with no security measurements nor error
checking, but fingers crossed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_File_Transfer_Protocol

Tamas


On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Tom=E1s =D3 h=C9ilidhe <toe@lavabit.com> w=
rote:

>
> I want to transfer files as quickly as possible over Ethernet.
>
> They say FTP is faster than Samba if you're copying a small amount of
> large files, but Samba is faster than FTP if you're copying a large
> amount of small files.
>
> I mostly copy a small amount of large files, e.g. files that are between
> 500 MB and 2 GB, so I'm thinking of going with FTP. So far though I've
> been using Samba.
>
> Should I consider any other methods of copying over Ethernet? FTP and
> Samba both sit on top of TCP, which I really don't need because I'll be
> copying across a cross-over cable, and packet loss on a LAN is something
> like one packet per month, so I'd prefer if I could get some sort of
> acknowledgement-less system, perhaps a protocol that runs on top of UDP.
> I'd prefer to use an MD5 checksum to confirm that the copy was error-free.
>
> The other day, using Samba, it took me 15 minutes to copy 8.19 gigabytes
> across a 100 Mbps Ethernet connection.
>
> 8.19 gigabytes =3D 70 412 301 552 bits
>
> 15 minutes    =3D    70 412 301 552 bits
>
> 1 minute =3D 4 694 153 436 bits
>
> 1 second =3D 78 235 890 bits
>
> Transfer speed =3D 78.2 Mbps
>
> That actually doesn't sound too bad at all for a 100 Mbps connection! Do
> you reckon I can do better?
>
> My laptop has a gigabit NIC but unfortunately the donor computer only
> has 100 Mbps.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>



-- =

Rudonix DoubleSaver
http://www.rudonix.com
-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist