4 ms·
Somewhere > 100GB, (or less, depending on connection speeds) sending physical media is faster. I recently copied 2TB from one hard drive to another on the same
by ams6110 10y ago
Somewhere > 100GB, (or less, depending on connection speeds) sending physical media is faster.
I recently copied 2TB from one hard drive to another on the same computer and it took half a day. Trying to rsync that amount of data over the internet would take far longer than FedEx-ing a hard drive.
Even locally, it can be faster to copy data to a thumb drive, move it to the other machine, and copy it back than to send it over the network.
- digi_owl 10y agoEven Amazon recognize this... https://aws.amazon.com/snowball/ https://aws.amazon.com/snowball/
- lsadam0 10y agoThey specify that snowball is a petabyte level solution. OP was discussing transferring files from his laptop. Does a laptop exist that can store petabytes? No.
- yellowapple 10y agoDepends on how big your lap is, I guess.
- Kubuxu 10y agoNot really true, 1Gib/s link is able to saturate HDD speed (if we are still talking local) and as you probably want to make a clone either way you might as well do it over network. 4x1Gib/s or 10Gib/s are more and more popular and in general local network latency is lower than HDD latency (surprising, isn't it). Sending over 1Gib/s network will be for sure faster than copying it on flash drive. Even if flash drive is able to do 128MiB/s speed, you have to first write it, swap machine, read it. Via network you do the write and read at the same time.