4 ms·

Internally: Every once in a while, I move VM images between machines. Even at 1Gbps, it's a drag to sit there and watch them transfer. Not really a big deal,

Internally: Every once in a while, I move VM images between machines. Even at 1Gbps, it's a drag to sit there and watch them transfer. Not really a big deal, but it'd be nice to see them move faster. Externally: I back up my Google Drive periodically. 500GB takes a while to transfer.

adamcharnock 5y ago
I agree, and this is totally the kind of thing I would do too. But I don’t think this represents average consumer behaviour.
vitus 5y ago
> I back up my Google Drive periodically. 500GB takes a while to transfer. Do you download the whole thing each time, vs just changed files? Either way, (scheduled!) periodic backups sounds like a thing that could happen over trough (well, while you're sleeping), in which case a 200Mbps connection would be more than adequate for your use case (~5.6 hours for 500GB). The numbers obviously scale linearly with the size of your download (a common anecdote I hear re: people filling up TBs of hard drives is via lots of RAW photos), so in that scenario, you'd need to transfer 30-40TB overnight (8 hours) in order to saturate a 10G uplink; you'd likely saturate hard drive write speeds first, not to mention you'd need multiple HDDs/SSDs connected to even store that much data in the first place.
- slumdev 5y ago
  It was a cinch when I had an always-on Windows box. I'd make a request via Takeout, save it on my Drive, and the Backup and Sync app would automatically download it to my local copy of the drive. But that box is now running Ubuntu, and I haven't gotten around to replacing Backup and Sync with one of the other (non-free, non-Google) options.
scandinavian 5y ago
I would be very surprised if you could even break 2.5 gbps towards google drive. Saturating 25 gbps to anything the peer out of country would be basically impossible most places.

4 ms·

Internally: Every once in a while, I move VM images between machines. Even at 1Gbps, it's a drag to sit there and watch them transfer. Not really a big deal,

by slumdev 5y ago

adamcharnock 5y ago
I agree, and this is totally the kind of thing I would do too. But I don’t think this represents average consumer behaviour.
vitus 5y ago
> I back up my Google Drive periodically. 500GB takes a while to transfer. Do you download the whole thing each time, vs just changed files? Either way, (scheduled!) periodic backups sounds like a thing that could happen over trough (well, while you're sleeping), in which case a 200Mbps connection would be more than adequate for your use case (~5.6 hours for 500GB). The numbers obviously scale linearly with the size of your download (a common anecdote I hear re: people filling up TBs of hard drives is via lots of RAW photos), so in that scenario, you'd need to transfer 30-40TB overnight (8 hours) in order to saturate a 10G uplink; you'd likely saturate hard drive write speeds first, not to mention you'd need multiple HDDs/SSDs connected to even store that much data in the first place.
- slumdev 5y ago
  It was a cinch when I had an always-on Windows box. I'd make a request via Takeout, save it on my Drive, and the Backup and Sync app would automatically download it to my local copy of the drive. But that box is now running Ubuntu, and I haven't gotten around to replacing Backup and Sync with one of the other (non-free, non-Google) options.
scandinavian 5y ago
I would be very surprised if you could even break 2.5 gbps towards google drive. Saturating 25 gbps to anything the peer out of country would be basically impossible most places.