FTP Upload Limits

[sarumbear]

On certain websites I'm struggling to increase the upload speed above 2GB. I have added the following to the wcx_ftp.ini file but there was no visible change.

[General]:
UploadBlockSize=32768

Free FTP clients like RightFTP has no limit, why does TC has?

We are in the world with 100MB data transfer speeds. Why are there even a speed limit on an FTP client.

I like TC but things like this really doing my head in. Why, why, why?

PS. I have posted this on an existing relevant topic (link below) but got no reply, hence re-posting it here as a new post.

http://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=13574&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=4b58c64af4a5a8fa600a4ccf20b28167

[Horst.Epp]

We are definitely not in the area of 100MB data transfer upload speeds.
Uploads are on todays DSL not that fast at all.
Also TC is not a specialized FTP tool so you may of course find many programs doing FTP transfers faster using concurent connections for example.

[j7n]

What is 2 Gigabyte (or bit) connection like? Holy... !!!

100 Mbit symmetric Ethernet is pretty common and cheap these days in most of Eastern Europe.

On the LAN, Total Commander can push about 700 Mbit/s, slightly less than FileZilla. I don't know where the difference comes from exactly, but I'm not worried about it, since the speed is good enough. (block size 46720)

Is your TCP stack tuned for speed, particularly the buffer sizes?

I know that recent versions of FileZilla set very large socket buffer (I've seen 4 Megabytes in the client), whereas most other applications like web browsers and probably TC, just accept the system defaults.

I may be understanding it wrong, but I think the "block size" is the amount of data written or removed from the buffer at once, not the total size of it, which should be set in the operating system according to the Bandwidth Delay Product (usually 256K-1M, but I have no idea about 2 gigabits to "websites").

Tjhe block size is one of those options I'd like to see on the GUI with a few common defaults in a listbox.

[sarumbear]

Is your TCP stack tuned for speed, particularly the buffer sizes?

TCP stack of Windows will effect the RightFTP won't it? The same site on the same computer; RightFTP hits 19Mbps, the limit of my line, while TC stops at 1.6Mbps.

Is this not TC's fault?

Why would we need to change/add undocumented settings in order to use the FTP function? Besides, UploadBlockSize=32768 hasn't made any change.

[sarumbear]

Also TC is not a specialized FTP tool...

I diagree! TC is a file manupulation tool and [F]ile [T]transfer [P]rotocol is part of TC's main jobs. FTP is on a prominent position on the toolbar even, by default!

[Dalai]

RightFTP hits 19Mbps, the limit of my line, while TC stops at 1.6Mbps.

Then there's something wrong on your system. I've got no problem to transfer 35 MiB/s - yes, megabytes (or rather mebibytes) per second, which are something around 280 MBps - to/from my FTP on internal LAN. And I didn't change any block size in my TC.

Did you test with disabled anti-virus software (if any)? Did you verify your numbers on another system and/or in different network?

Regards
Dalai

[j7n]

The settings are documented and known to users of TCP Optimizer. The parameter that required verification in the thread I linked earlier, Windows' capability to dynamically adjust the buffer, and whether disabling it brings any improvement.

An FTP client can't get the sizes right for everybody. There are still users of slow connections. Some clients may choose to be more aggressive, others more compatible with older systems.

I found a good FTP speed test here: speedtest.tele2.net. They have about five fast servers (all in europe) we can use for good reference. I'm posting this here because most similar tests only deal with http/Flash, and this is quite rare.

I'm usually getting about 6-7 MB/s upload to KST-5 with Total Commander (10 ms ping).

KST5, Sweden - WEN1, Vienna, Austria

[sarumbear]

RightFTP hits 19Mbps, the limit of my line, while TC stops at 1.6Mbps.

Then there's something wrong on your system.

Do you mean I have something so specific wrong on my system that limits TC upload speed but not any other FTP client? I will be in debted to you if you can give me an example of such an issue on my 'system.

Besides the fact that the exact same happens on three TC installs in three different PCs (all Windows 7 Pro), one even connected to a different ISP (cable vs fibre).

Am I going to accept that TC is invincible, nothing can be wrong with it and its me who isdoing something wrong or doing a faulty system???

[Dalai]

Do you mean I have something so specific wrong on my system that limits TC upload speed but not any other FTP client?

Well, did you test with anti-virus software (and other software of that kind) disabled? What's the system's MTU size? Maybe the system has to fragment the packets TC sends, but the other clients take some precautions to avoid this (by sending smaller packets).

Besides the fact that the exact same happens on three TC installs in three different PCs (all Windows 7 Pro), one even connected to a different ISP (cable vs fibre).

You should check what these systems have in common.

Am I going to accept that TC is invincible, nothing can be wrong with it and its me who isdoing something wrong or doing a faulty system???

I didn't say that, did I? OK, maybe my words were a little bit too harsh, but I just wanted to make clear that there's no limit in TC's FTP client.

Regards
Dalai

[HolgerK]

The same site on the same computer; RightFTP hits 19Mbps, the limit of my line, while TC stops at 1.6Mbps.

-> You are aware of the fact that TC's copy dialog shows bytes/s and not bits/s?

-> As far as i see RightFtp uses mutithreaded data transfers while TC definitely does not.
First because TC is not a specialized FTP client.
And afair ghisler(author) stated elsewhere in the forum that domain admins would complain if TC-users would occupy the complete bandwidth inside domain networks.

Regards
Holger

[j7n]

If the OP optimized the TCP configuration, including the MTU size (if some kind of PPP or VPN is in use) the need for multiple connections/threads would be minimized, unless the remote server has set limits per 1 connection or uses small buffers. Also make sure Compound TCP is turned on in Windows.

To test if changing the buffer sizes brings an improvement, without rebooting, which would be needed to apply changes in the registry, use FileZilla (or other software where the buffer size is configurable). (Make sure to test without SSL/TLS in FileZilla, if you would use plain FTP in TC/RightFtp.) If this does make a difference, maybe an option for the buffer size could be added to TC. (I still prefer setting it for the whole system so that it applies to all applications at once.)

I agree that a file manager should handle most tasks with files well, including search, copy and network transfer. I find that the FTP is good enough, considering the convenience of using one program versus two. Since TC added MLSD and Unicode support to FTP, the client has been my default choice.

Maybe consistently writing "bit" or "Bit" when bits and meant would avoid the usual ambiguity.

[sarumbear]

You are aware of the fact that TC's copy dialog shows bytes/s and not bits/s?

Yes, I am aware of, besides, I'm measuring at the OS level using a different app and timing the transfers

As far as i see RightFtp uses mutithreaded data transfers while TC definitely does not.

RightFTP was set to allow only one connection.

I find that the FTP is good enough

That phrase should not be in anyone's vocabulary!

Meanwhile let's read these two declerations one after another:

I just wanted to make clear that there's no limit in TC's FTP client.

ghisler(author) stated elsewhere in the forum that domain admins would complain if TC-users would occupy the complete bandwidth inside domain networks.

Who to trust? Author or user?

[Hacker]

sarumbear,

Who to trust? Author or user?

Both Dalai and HolgerK are users.

Roman

[HolgerK]

And afair

ghisler(author) stated elsewhere in the forum that domain admins would complain if TC-users would occupy the complete bandwidth inside domain networks.

As far as I remember.
And that does not mean in any case that there is a build in speed limit...

Regards
Holger

[j7n]

Why not "good enough"?

For instance, I am sometimes annoyed how the background copy dialog is unresponsive. I can manage to click on 'Pause' or 'Speed Limit' 2 or 3 times while TC is busy sending the megabyte or so that is buffered up, and give the program an unintended command. But if it takes a disproportionate amount of work to redesign this dialog to be "multithreaded", then I can accept the minor inconvenience and work around it. I'd also consider it acceptable it the program couldn't deal with some super rare Unicode symbols, as long is at could handle normal western languages (even those should be avoided in filenames anyway).

Recently I tested TC's speed on a LAN (second post). It almost maxed out the gigabit speed.