Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes a huge difference when copying lots of files over SMB, for example.
I've never heard that, but I also don't use SMB heavily (especially over Wifi) to begin with. Is there a site you can point to that details the protocol's latency-sensitivity? If something like bulk file transfer is at issue, a ping test with sizes closer to the MTU (e.g. 1480 bytes) would be a closer simulation of those latencies.
How we solved our office Wi-Fi problems
251–252 of 252 posts
Re: How we solved our office Wi-Fi problems
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never heard that, but I also don't use SMB heavily (especially over Wifi) to begin with. Is there a site you can point to that details the protocol's latency-sensitivity? If something like bulk file transfer is at issue, a ping test with sizes closer to the MTU (e.g. 1480 bytes) would be a closer simulation of those latencies.
It's just what I've experienced myself when copying a lot of files. E.g. "add 50k photos from network drive to Photos" or "perform initial Time Machine backup". Over cable I'd say it's at least twice as fast, haven't done any measurements though.
> Over cable I'd say it's at least twice as fast
That could be be because of the bandwidth difference, if wireless isn't 802.11ac (or if the cable isn't 100Mb/s).
Is it also the case that copying a single file of comparable size doesn't show the same speedup?