Bandwidth Bottlenecks

mrraymrray Registered Users Posts: 12 Big grins
edited May 2, 2007 in SmugMug Support
Hello All,

Well just finished my first upload of 7gb of photos to 1 album but it seemed to take forever. I averaged only 100 kilobytes per second on my upload speed using star explorer. I was uploading from work at FSU where my bandwidth is pretty much unlimited. Does anyone know if there is a bandwidth cap as too how fast you can upload to smugmug? I tested out a few other services outside my network and averaged anywhere from 3 - 15 megabits per second. Uploading to smugmug barely pushed 1 megabit per second. Now I know this may sound like I am complaining because it sure beats most DSL speeds, however we are looking to migrate about 50gb of data for our initial setup.

Marc

Comments

  • mrraymrray Registered Users Posts: 12 Big grins
    edited April 18, 2007
    Update Bandwidth Bottlenecks
    So i just switched to SmugBrowser and my speeds are now averaging 600kilobytes per second :) Much better. I am working to see what was causing the bandwidth problems with star explorer but it could be because I was running it under parallels.
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2007
    mrray wrote:
    I was running it under parallels.
    That could do it :D
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • jfriendjfriend Registered Users Posts: 8,097 Major grins
    edited April 18, 2007
    mrray wrote:
    Hello All,

    Well just finished my first upload of 7gb of photos to 1 album but it seemed to take forever. I averaged only 100 kilobytes per second on my upload speed using star explorer. I was uploading from work at FSU where my bandwidth is pretty much unlimited. Does anyone know if there is a bandwidth cap as too how fast you can upload to smugmug? I tested out a few other services outside my network and averaged anywhere from 3 - 15 megabits per second. Uploading to smugmug barely pushed 1 megabit per second. Now I know this may sound like I am complaining because it sure beats most DSL speeds, however we are looking to migrate about 50gb of data for our initial setup.

    Marc

    You are more likely to get StarExplorer specific questions answered in the StarExplorer thread in the API discussion forum. I have noticed this same phenomenon with StarExplorer and actually find that the java uploader is signficantly faster than StarExplorer when I'm uploading lots of images from a very fast network (T1/T3 at work). I don't know why that is, but I know Nik has worked on it some. Best to go ask him over in that thread.
    --John
    Homepage • Popular
    JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
     Always include a link to your site when posting a question
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited May 1, 2007
    mrray wrote:
    Hello All,

    Well just finished my first upload of 7gb of photos to 1 album but it seemed to take forever. I averaged only 100 kilobytes per second on my upload speed using star explorer. I was uploading from work at FSU where my bandwidth is pretty much unlimited. Does anyone know if there is a bandwidth cap as too how fast you can upload to smugmug? I tested out a few other services outside my network and averaged anywhere from 3 - 15 megabits per second. Uploading to smugmug barely pushed 1 megabit per second. Now I know this may sound like I am complaining because it sure beats most DSL speeds, however we are looking to migrate about 50gb of data for our initial setup.

    Marc

    Marc, I'm not sure.... I use S*E all the time myself (who'd guessed;-). On a our office's T3 line I'm getting around 1Mb (that's megabyte, not megabit) per second upload speed. Maybe it's your local router/LAN? I had some problems when I had an old 100Mbit one, but once it got a Gbit they have disappeared.
    Let me know!
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • mrraymrray Registered Users Posts: 12 Big grins
    edited May 2, 2007
    Never would have guessed :) My first guess is that I need to try running it native and not under parallels on my mac. Could be something to do with thier network stack. However I did some bandwidth test with parallels and was able to hit 25 - 30 mbit uploads to other sites, including FTP. The other issues is we are 90% mac and a most of us are not on intel...so that killed the abillity to use Star Explorer on their computers. I think the software is great and was no doubt very stable but just did not have enough time to diagnose my particular issues with it.

    Thanks
    Marc
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited May 2, 2007
    mrray wrote:
    Never would have guessed :) My first guess is that I need to try running it native and not under parallels on my mac. Could be something to do with thier network stack. However I did some bandwidth test with parallels and was able to hit 25 - 30 mbit uploads to other sites, including FTP. The other issues is we are 90% mac and a most of us are not on intel...so that killed the abillity to use Star Explorer on their computers. I think the software is great and was no doubt very stable but just did not have enough time to diagnose my particular issues with it.

    Thanks
    Marc

    Marc, can I ask you for a favor? Since you already have Parallels, can you try IE uploader (yeah, I know, I'm asking for a lot:-) and compare it to S*E (in multithreaded mode) just for ONE file?
    TIA! thumb.gif
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • mrraymrray Registered Users Posts: 12 Big grins
    edited May 2, 2007
    I am uploading now and it is averaging 182 kilobytes per second upload. Oddly it is really staying steady at 182 kilobytes per second with almost no fluctuations. Unlike the java version I can only get it to spawn one uploader at a time.

    marc
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited May 2, 2007
    mrray wrote:
    I am uploading now and it is averaging 182 kilobytes per second upload. Oddly it is really staying steady at 182 kilobytes per second with almost no fluctuations. Unlike the java version I can only get it to spawn one uploader at a time.

    marc

    Thanks for the data!
    Can you check/share the java-based one speed?
    Any chance of trying IE?

    As to the one instance... As you are probably aware, S*E is using local database to cache all the necessary information (that's why you can alsways see and explore your whole SM tree w/o even been conected:-). Multiple processes writing to a simple desktop db engine = very bad idea. It's doable, but the coding efforts are rather large, and it will actually bring speed down due to the sycnhronization issues.

    HTH
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • mrraymrray Registered Users Posts: 12 Big grins
    edited May 2, 2007
    The 182 kilobytes per second was using the internet explorer uploader. As for the Java uploader while using internet explorer can get it up to about 1.5 megabyte per second using simultanious uploads. However this took about 10 simultanious uploads going at the same time. Currenlty this works perfect for our workflow because we are using Smugmug as our master archive of photos, and 99% of the time we use Smugmug we will be online. However for my friends whom do not have 50megabits of bandwidth available, and are using Windows, I will be directing them towards star explorer because they are more likely to que up thier uploads at night when their computer is idle.
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited May 2, 2007
    mrray wrote:
    However for my friends whom do not have 50megabits of bandwidth available, and are using Windows, I will be directing them towards star explorer because they are more likely to que up thier uploads at night when their computer is idle.
    Well, thanks, appreciate it! thumb.gif
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
Sign In or Register to comment.