It's not unheard of for some of the earliest adopters of Microsoft's Vista this year to compare the experience to swimming in wet cement -- slow and not very pretty.
But word is filtering out of the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant that indicates its new server could be considerably better. Ward Ralston at the Windows Server Division Weblog reports that "our MSN group who is dogfooding Windows Server 200 RC0" has achieved the kind of testing results that might prompt a double-take. In a side-by-side between Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008, the group set out to transfer 10.8 GB of "VirtualEarth Stitch files" from one server to another, and back again.
On Windows Server 2003, the data took five hours, 40 minutes and 30 seconds to transfer once, and more than six hours to transfer back again.
But word is filtering out of the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant that indicates its new server could be considerably better. Ward Ralston at the Windows Server Division Weblog reports that "our MSN group who is dogfooding Windows Server 200 RC0" has achieved the kind of testing results that might prompt a double-take. In a side-by-side between Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008, the group set out to transfer 10.8 GB of "VirtualEarth Stitch files" from one server to another, and back again.
On Windows Server 2003, the data took five hours, 40 minutes and 30 seconds to transfer once, and more than six hours to transfer back again.
On Windows Server 2008, the same data took seven minutes and 45 seconds to transfer one way, and eight minutes and 10 seconds to transfer back. The Microsoft people spare you the task of doing all that math: "The improvement observed was ~45 times faster over windows 2003."
If the numbers are consistent and no other glitches come up (this software has been in beta for a few years now), it could prove compelling when it is launched - - an event now slated for the first quarter of next year.
News source: CRN
Hell, Microsoft designed Windows File Sharing - clearly they've done something wrong on Server 2003 and need to patch it up pronto.
Hell, Microsoft designed Windows File Sharing - clearly they've done something wrong on Server 2003 and need to patch it up pronto.
Obviously neither of you know what your talking about.
Hell, Microsoft designed Windows File Sharing - clearly they've done something wrong on Server 2003 and need to patch it up pronto.
please do your research before shouting .. these speeds were achieved due to an brand new protocol (SMB v2). You already have this in a slimmed down version in Vista.
There will be no patch! Upgrade them servers .. worth it... 2k8 rocks
Maybe if they didn't decide to stop supporting my hardware, it would be an option, obvesily a quad processor server is WAY too crap for now-a-day uses...
agreed the way to change peoples minds about vista is to add features like this through updates
who ever said it was one file .. and who said it was the transfer speed holding them back. effecientcy of the cpu, ram, hdd access in the OS ... they all account for something.
Vista got prioritized I/O .. 2k8 can do the same. this alone could save alot of time...
surely conditions are the same .. else they wouldn't be shouting it about..
ps. this is age old news. nummerous test have been done .. this is confirmed
From the source blog "a collection of 10 VirtualEarth Stitch files"
Transfer from one server to another over what system (technology) and bandwidth rating?, what was the location of the two systems?
did they just forget it was being cached somewhere by some external system?
did they just not realise something else was abusing 99% of the bandwidth during the first test?
hell, did they build a totally clean system from the start, and just forget that with the 2003 system
they'd left the indexing service on and it was scanning throughout the initial test. (jk)
Edit: whoops, made the mistake of readind the CRN source link instead of the Windows Server Division Weblog
b. In LH RC0 build, from TK2 to BLU, it took 7 minutes and 45 seconds, Transfer rate observed was 25062249 Bytes/sec. From BLU to TK2, it was 8 minutes and 10 seconds, Transfer rate observed was 23712912 Bytes/sec
still makes you wonder what was really going on with the first test, there should have been reruns, that would also have discovered if they'd forgotten a transparent cache.
Last edited by yakumo on 23 Nov 2007 - 14:19
10.8GB * 2 = 21.6GB to me, how you got 20TB is magical
ah i see, the guy made a mistake, its 10.8TB... correct the article someone
What is this all about?
The math doesn't add up then, the original blog stated 567813 Bytes/sec,
keeping it very basic -
567813 (b)*60 (s)*60 (m) *6 (h) / 1024 (k) / 1024 (m) / 1024 (for gig) = 11.42 gig.
if it was more than ten thousand gig it would have had to have transferred a hell of a lot faster than 567813 Bytes/sec to shift ten thousand gig in under six hours.
Like yakumo said... The transfer rate does not add up with what you are suggesting. Better think twice before replying next time
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/25/win...ewed/page8.html
Windows Server 2008 and Windows Vista uses SMB 2.0 vs. 1.0 that's been used in all previous version of Windows. The charts tell you all the story, and it's just not another marketing scam.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.