The cache in whatever drive you are writing to filled up, and then it runs at a much slower speed.When I uploading a file over 100 Mbit lan, my upload speed showing 1000-500 Mbit for first minutes, and after become average. What is that?
So, those huge speed's are just cashing?The cache in whatever drive you are writing to filled up, and then it runs at a much slower speed.
This is absolutely normal and to be expected.
But I think your unit numbers are off.
A 100 megabit LAN, and upload speed of 1000-500 megabits?
Can't be both.
So, those speed's (100-50 megabytes) are reporting by the FIlezilla and not the FTP share. But how, if speed's are became normal on 20% of upload?Yes.
I mean, cashing also measured and counted in the 0 to 100% uploading process?So, those speed's (100-50 megabytes) are reporting by the FIlezilla and not the FTP share. But how, if speed's are became normal on 20% of upload?
I mean, I thought that cashing is happening before the uploading process, and not being counted during uploading itself.What, specifically, is showing you these numbers?
I have the time zone offset, maybe it's playing a role?What, specifically, is showing you these numbers?
A hard drive has its own cache.I mean, I thought that cashing is happening before the uploading process, and not being counted during uploading itself.
No idea what you mean by that, but no.I have the time zone offset, maybe it's playing a role?
In the end, all that matters is if an upload was a successful one or not?A hard drive has its own cache.
That is what you're writing to first.
The data is then transferred to the platters.
Once that cache fills up, the whole procedure slows down.
This is the way storage drives work. All of them.
Exactly.In the end, all that matters is if an upload was a successful one or not?
I upload from an SSD, that's made my couple minutes of uploading crazy fast because of inner cashing and the fact that SSD's is faster than HDD's. So difference in speeds between cashing and direct uploading, caused that.Exactly.
Uploading from SSD is irrelevant.I upload from an SSD, that's made my couple minutes of uploading crazy fast because of inner cashing and the fact that SSD's is faster than HDD's. So difference in speeds between cashing and direct uploading, caused that.
So, short answer is cashing.Uploading from SSD is irrelevant.
Performance depends on the slowest device in the chain.
Source, LAN, target.
The small cache on the HDD, and then the native speed of the HDD, or the LAN, is the limiting factor.
Even discounting the LAN factor...with two internal drives. An SSD and an HDD.
The HDD is the slowest device in the chain. No matter how fast the SSD feeds the HDD...the HDD cannot process faster than it can.
And also the actual drive speed.So, short answer is cashing.
You know, I have an average speed of 50 megabit, and suddenly i've got a 600 megabit, just a little freaked out.And also the actual drive speed.
In my system, 2x NVMe SSD.
1x PCIe 4.0 and 1x PCIe 3.0
Copying in either direction, the PCIe 3.0 determines the performance.
Or to/from any of the SATA III SSDs.
They are the determining factor.
Speed on what?You know, I have an average speed of 50 megabit, and suddenly i've got a 600 megabit, just a little freaked out.
External to your house LAN?Uploading to a server.
No, all happening over one LAN.External to your house LAN?
That brings a whole new aspect into this.
You are also limited by whatever that server can do.
And I remain confused.No, all happening over one LAN.
Exactly, I have a 100 megabit ethernet, therefore I can't understand the huge speed's.And I remain confused.
"I have an average speed of 50 megabit, and suddenly i've got a 600 megabit "
Is this a standard gigabit LAN, or as you sort of indicated early, 100megabit?
And neither of those speeds...50 or 600, are viable for a 100megabit network.Exactly, I have a 100 megabit ethernet, therefore I can't understand the huge speed's.