LAN file transfer speed much slower than Internet file transfer speed

We have several Macs & windows machines on a Ethernet LAN with an X server. We also have an airport express and a repeater. The LAN will download an 85MB file in about 4 seconds but over the wireless network it takes 31 Minutes for the same file. What's the problem?
A wireless internet speed test yealds 1504 down and 1213 up and is about the same with the LAN connection.
Both the windows laptops and the imacs seem to have this problem. Any ideas?

Do you have any older wireless equipment that may be connecting at 802.11B, which would slow down your wireless network? For best results if you don't have have any 802.11B clients, switch your broadcast mode to 802.11 G only.
Just a thought.

Similar Messages

WRT160N speed much slower than old WRT300N

Speedtest.net reports 5Mbsec vs. 15 Mbsec of old router. Cox is ISP. I tried to turn off UPnP as suggested, no effect. I tried changing the MTU to 1300 and 1350 as suggested by others, no effect. Any other ideas?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

What's the version number of your router ?
What's the Security Mode ?
To get the better speed through the router, It's required to set the Security Mode either on WPA or WPA2. Also, try the below mentioned settings.
Open an Internet Explorer browser page on your wired computer(desktop).In the address bar type - 192.168.1.1 and press Enter...
Leave Username blank & in Password use admin in lower case...
Click on the Wireless tab
Click on the Sub tab under Wireless > Wireless Security...
Change the Wireless security mode to WPA, For Encryption, select TKIP...For Passphrase input your desired WPA Key. For example , MySecretKey , This will serve as your network key whenever you connect to your wireless network. Do NOT give this key to anyone and remember the key.
NOTE : Passphrase should be more that 8 characters...
Click on Advanced Wireless Settings
Change the Beacon Interval to 75,Change the Fragmentation Threshold to 2304,Change the RTS Threshold to 2304 and Click on Save Settings...

Wireless Download speed much slower than it should be

Wireless Download speed on Belkin N300 is only 1.5 mps and hard wired speed is 50 mps. Firmware is up to date, what else can I do?? What is the Wireless Router that Comcast recomends??

A Verizon Tech support employee helped solve the issue. Apparrently we still had the same plan when we started and were only getting 768 kbps download and were paying like $21 dollar for it. So we are going to upgrade and get the starter plan and pay $20 a month and get 1 MB download. I might even get the 3 MB download plan.

My four year old iMac is running much slower than when it was new. Any suggestions on cleaning out the cob webs?

My four year old iMac is running much slower than when it was new. Does anyone have any suggestions on what I can do to "clean it up" and get it running like it used to?

What year, screen size, CPU speed and amount of RAM installed?
To find out info about your system,
Click on the Apple symbol in the upper left of the OS X main menu bar. A drop down menu appears.
Click About this Mac. A smaller popup window appears. This gives you basic info like what version of OS X your iMac is running, the speed of your iMac's CPU and how much RAM is installed.
Click on the button that says More Info. A larger window appears giving you a complete overview of your iMac's hardware specs.
Highlight all of this info and copy/paste all of this into another reply to this post, editing out your iMac's serial number before actually posting the reply.
This will tell us everything about your iMac so we may begin to help with your iMac issues.
How full is your Mac's hard drive?
Locate your iMac's hard drive icon on the OS X desktop. Click the icon once, then use the keyboard key combination Command-I. This will give you additonal info about your iMac's internal hard drive.
Post this info in your reply here, also.
Here are some general tips to keep your Mac's hard drive trim and slim as possible
You should never, EVER let a conputer hard drive get completely full, EVER!
With Macs and OS X, you shouldn't let the hard drive get below 15 GBs or less of free data space.
If it does, it's time for some hard drive housecleaning.
Follow some of my tips for cleaning out, deleting and archiving data from your Mac's internal hard drive.
Have you emptied your Mac's Trash icon in the Dock?
If you use iPhoto, iPhoto has its own trash that needs to be emptied, also.
If you store images in other locations other than iPhoto, then you will have to weed through these to determine what to archive and what to delete.
If you use Apple Mail app, Apple Mail also has its own trash area that needs to be emptied, too!
Delete any old or no longer needed emails and/or archive to disc, flash drives or external hard drive, older emails you want to save.
Look through your other Mailboxes and other Mail categories to see If there is other mail you can archive and/or delete.
STAY AWAY FROM DELETING ANY FILES FROM OS X SYSTEM FOLDER!
Look through your Documents folder and delete any type of old useless type files like "Read Me" type files.
Again, archive to disc, flash drives, ext. hard drives or delete any old documents you no longer use or immediately need.
Look in your Applications folder, if you have applications you haven't used in a long time, if the app doesn't have a dedicated uninstaller, then you can simply drag it into the OS X Trash icon. IF the application has an uninstaller app, then use it to completely delete the app from your Mac.
To find other large files, download an app called Omni Disk Sweeper.
Download an app called OnyX for your version of OS X.
When you install and launch it, let it do its initial automatic tests, then go to the cleaning and maintenance tabs and run the maintenance tabs that let OnyX clean out all web browser cache files, web browser histories, system cache files, delete old error log files.
Typically, iTunes and iPhoto libraries are the biggest users of HD space.
move these files/data off of your internal drive to the external hard drive and deleted off of the internal hard drive.
If you have any other large folders of personal data or projects, these should be archived or moved, also, to the optical discs, flash drives or external hard drive and then either archived to disc and/or deleted off your internal hard drive.
Good Luck!

PS CS3 much slower than CS2 on Intel Mac. I don't get it.

Yes, very very strange.
I work with very large files, so I just got a spiffy new Mac Pro. It's my first Intel machine, so I expected that CS2 would drag a little bit, due to Rosetta. In fact, moving from one processor to eight of them seems to have much more than compensated. Nevertheless, I ordered CS4 and while I wait I downloaded the demo of CS3.
I expected that CS3 would fly (no Rosetta) but have found my test tasks taking an inordinate amount of time... much slower than CS2 on the same Xeon workstation, and slower than CS2 on my old iMac (single 2.1GHz G5)
Since I work with extremely large files, I got a hardware RAID5 made up of four 15,000RPM SAS drives. I can't get enough RAM to avoid using scratch disk, so I attacked the biggest performance bottleneck. I did get 8GB of RAM; would have gotten more, but I read that it won't matter until CS goes 64-bit in CS5 at the earliest.
The rest of it: dual quad-core 2.8GHz "Woodcrest" Xeon processors, NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card, OS X 10.5.5, all updates (Apple and Adobe) applied as of 6pm Wednesday October 8th.
I'm running two tests as my benchmark: open a file (PSD created with CS2, 75" x 75" at 400ppi, two layers, RGB with one additional channel) and resize to 75" x 75" at 800ppi. Once that is done, I rotate the new, massive file counterclockwise 18.5 degrees.
On my old setup, 2.1GHz SP G5 iMac with CS2, these tasks took 38m 30s and 1h 33m 22s respectively.
New machine with CS2: 10m 09s and 29m 14s respectively
New machine with CS3: 42m 38s and 1h 36m 24s
(above tests run repeatedly: these numbers are the fastest numbers for each configuration)
I have nothing else running for these tests, except for Activity Monitor. What I've observed with Activity Monitor: the old G5 was pegged at (or very near) 100% CPU the whole time. Mac Pro with CS2, Photoshop ran most of the time on one CPU at a time, but spiked up as high as 250% CPU usage just for Photoshop.
I haven't seen Photoshop CS3 use more than 80% of one processor the whole time on the Mac Pro. Mostly it sits around 35%.
One more informal test: if I open that same file and downsample from 400ppi to 200ppi, CS2 does it in 1m 40s. CS3: 6m 57s. I don't have the iMac any more so I can't tell you how long it would take there.
In both CS2 and CS3 the scratch disk is my startup volume, but it's a RAID. I can't add any more drives except for external drives. I could have configured it to one dedicated system drive and a second scratch volume made up of the remaining three drives, but I consulted with people who know RAID better than I do who agreed that since everything is going through the SCSI controller and everything gets written to multiple drives in order to make it faster that I'd get a performance hit by splitting the RAID into two volumes, even if multiple processes are trying to get at the same drive array. Even adding a Firewire 800 drive for scratch would be slower than using the RAID. Or so I've been told.
So, this seems absurd. CS3 is not using Rosetta, right? So it should be flying on my machine. What on earth could I have done to a fresh CS3 (demo) install to make it slower than CS2 on my old G5? Is the CS3 demo crippled? Is there a conflict having CS2 and the CS3 demo on the same machine?
I'm stumped.

>Ya see, this is the attitude you really, really should get over. The Photoshop CS3 (10.0.1) code is just fine... it's your system (hardware/software) which, for some reason is not providing an optimal environment.
Jeff, I agree completely. You seem to be assuming that I actually think Adobe wrote bad code. In fact, I believe Adobe did NOT write bad code (and I wrote that) but that the condition that you are suggesting (CS3 being slowed by having having scratch and system on the same volume to a far greater extent than CS2) could only be caused by bad code by Adobe. Since I believe that, as you say, a universal difference of this magnitude between CS2 and CS3 would be noticed by huge numbers of users, I doubt that what I am seeing is the result of having scratch and system on the same volume.
In case I'm being less than clear:
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS2.
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS3.
On my system CS2 performs tasks three to four times faster than CS3.
ergo, either there is some problem other than scratch and system being on the same volume (perhaps something that exacerbates the scratch/system/same volume issue, OK, I accept that possibility) or else the change has been between CS2s and CS3s handling of scratch disks.
If for the sake of argument we rule out the possibility that CS3 handles the condition of scratch and system being on the same volume worse than CS2 does, the only possibility left is that there is SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH MY SYSTEM.
I am trying to find out what that other thing is. You're the one insisting that scratch and system being on the same volume is the cause of the CS3 slowdown. Accusing me of not believing that there's something wrong with my system misses the mark entirely. I ABSOLUTELY believe there is something wrong with my system.
> Your RAM tests sound pretty thorough, but if I had your large-files workflow I would buy two (or preferably 4) 4-GB sized matched RAM DIMMs, remove all the existing RAM, and install only the new RAM to further test whether or not the old RAM is anomalous.
Thanks Allen,
Actually, this is exactly what I've done, though in a different order. My system shipped with two 1GB chips. I bought two 4GB chips from OWC and installed them, and found my CS2 performance to increase significantly. It was only then that I tried installing the CS3 demo. When I found CS3 running my tests more slowly than expected, I pulled the new RAM out and tried with just the original 2GB and tested both CS2 and CS3 again. Then I took the original 2GB out, put only the new RAM in and tested CS2 and CS3 again, finding the same results. Currently I have all 10GB in the system and for the moment I'm setting aside the possibility of a problem with the RAM (or at least setting aside the possibility that the RAM chips are just plain bad) because that would indicate that both the new and the old RAM are both bad in the same way. That seems unlikely.
So I guess I'll have to drag the system down to the Genius Bar if I don't see an improvement from rearranging my hard drives.
The update there is that last night I backed up my system, and this morning I deleted my RAID5 set, blowing away everything on my system until I can restore from backup. The new configuration is 1 JBOD drive plus three drives attached as RAID0.
Unfortunately, neither of the new volumes is visible when I go to restore from backup. For the moment, this little experiment has cost me my entire system. The upshot is that it may be some more time before I have any more information to share. Even when I do get it working again, I can expect restoring to take the same 12 hours that backing up did.
I will certainly post here when I've got my system back.

To run a piece of PL/SQL code, in TT is much slower than in ORACLE.

A piece of PL/SQL code , about 1500 lines, package is named rtmon_event, function in it is named rtmon_SHOLD_CUS_RPT;
the PL/SQL code is run in ORACLE.
Now I want to get fast speed, I think of TT.
I rewrite the PL/SQL code by grammer in TT.
But the speed in TT is much slower than the speed in ORACLE.
In ORACLE, to run the PL/SQL code, it need 80 seconds; but In TT, to run the PL/SQL code, it need 183 seconds;
How can I resolve the problem?
Btw: there are some joins of 2 tables, or 3 tables in rtmon_event.rtmon_SHOLD_CUS_RPT, and some complex DML in it.
The run method is :
declare
a number;
begin
a := rtmon_event.rtmon_SHOLD_CUS_RPT ;
end;
Thanks a lot.

The easiest way to view a plan is to use ttIsql and issue the command:
explain SQL-statement;
For example:
explain select a.ol1, b.col2 from taba a, tab b where a.key = b.key;
See the documentation that 'hitgon' pointed you to to help you interpret the plans.
Chris

Firefox 23 loads slower than Internet Explorer 10

I was doing a speed test between Firefox 23 and Internet Explorer 10. If you visit http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/PenguinMark/ all addons are disable on Firefox 23 and still slower than internet explorer. Why is that?

I don't know how to interpret my results. I got 1 in Firefox (no snow visible) and 8370 in IE (blizzard). Maybe I'm blocking something?

ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5

A big advantage of hosting ACR in 64 bit CS5 vs in bridge was that then ACR would process multiple images at once when saving them to jpg which would reduce processing times by 30% or more. For some reason this doesn't seem to be the case with CS6. I just did a short test and CS6 won't process multiple images at once, and was 33% slower than CS5 at saving a batch of 5dmkii images to jpeg.
Has anyone else noticed this? Hopefully this limitation is due to beta status and the final release of ACR will be fully optimized for 64bit processing.

It seems strange that their is hardly any improvement in 64 bit cs6 speed vs 32 bit cs5.    I agree, gpu support for acr would great!
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:25:25 -0600
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    Re: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    created by Noel Carboni in Photoshop CS6 - View the full discussion
Bridge in CS5 was 32 bit only, and I observed the 32 bit converter as run by Bridge (or Photoshop 32 bit) wouldn't exercise all the cores, so the way I interpret your numbers is as follows:
1. ACR7 is 50% slower than its predecessor (34.25 seconds when run in Photoshop 64 bit vs. 22.59).
2. Bridge is now 64 bit, so you're running the same code in both cases, which is why you're seeing essentially the same number in Bridge as Photoshop.
-Noel
     Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297
     To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
     Start a new discussion in Photoshop CS6 by email or at Adobe Forums
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

Can iMac be updated or just get new one? On iMac with OSX10.5.8, 2Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo--it's so much slower than iPad. It hasn't had cache cleaned or "First aid". I'm wondering if a computer store/techie can clean/update it or better to put $$ towards new

Can iMac be updated or just get new one? On iMac with OSX10.5.8, 2Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo--it's so much slower than iPad. It hasn't had cache cleaned or "First aid". I'm wondering if a computer store/techie can clean/update it or better to put $$ towards new?

If you want to clean up your hard drive some, here are some of my tips, also.
Hard drive getting full or near full?
Do a search for and downlaod and install OmniDisk Sweeper and OnyX.
Here are some of my tips for deleting or archiving data off of your internal hard
Have you emptied your iMac's Trash icon in the Dock?
If you use iPhoto, iPhoto has its own trash that needs to be emptied, also.
If you use Apple Mail app, Apple Mail also has its own trash area that needs to be emptied, too!
Other things you can do to gain space.
Delete any old or no longer needed emails and/or archive older emails you want to save to disc, Flash drive/s or to ext. hard drive.
Look through your Documents folder and delete any type of old useless type files like "Read Me" type files.
Again, archive to disc, Flash drive or ext. hard drive and/or delete any old documents you no longer use or immediately need.
Uninstall apps that you no longer use. If the app has a dedicated uninstaller, use it to completely uninstall the app. If the app has no uninstaller, then just drag it to the OS X Trash icon and empty the Trash.
Also, if you save old downloaded .dmg application installer files, you can either archive and delete these or just delete the ones you think you'll never install, again.
Download an app called OnyX for your version of OS X.
When you install and launch it, let it do its thing initially, then go to the cleaning and maintenance tabs and run all of the processes in the tabs. Let OnyX clean out all web browser cache files, web browser histories, system cache files, delete old error log files.
Typically, iTunes and iPhoto libraries are the biggest users of HD space.
If you have any other large folders of personal data or projects, these should be thinned out, moved, also, to the external hard drive and then either archived to disc, Flash drive or ext. hard drive and/or deleted off your internal hard drive.
Good Luck!

I using FF-5-Stable. It much slower than Google Chrome 13. & crash during upload ??

I using FF-5-Stable. It much slower than Google Chrome 13. & crash during upload ??
it takes too much time to open a page.
Always Crash during upload..for big or small file..
It hangs and closed through Task manager or Reboot...

1. What are you "uploading"?
2. Have you tried a new Profile? Profiles don't last forever, and after going through a few major version updates "things" slow down, depending upon how much stuff the user has added to Firefox. Personally, I have created a new Profile for every new version of Firefox I have installed, up through Firefox 4.0. Didn't do that for Firefox 5, and probably won't for Firefox 6, due to the new fast release schedule and the fact that Firefox isn't being changed as much from one version to the next as it used to be changed under the 10 to 14 month intervals between major versions.<br />
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_new_Firefox_profile_on_Windows

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Why is Lion so much slower?

Preview takes forever to open, much slower than on my old MacBook running Snow Leopard. It has been like this since I bought the computer last January. Any ideas?

Take it to an Apple Store for testing. If you don't get immediate satisfaction, exchange it for another one, which you can do at no cost, no questions asked, within 14 days of delivery.

Why is menu size so much larger than the files?

I am somewhat perplexed - I'm making a single-layer dvd and have a simple single screen theme (no animation) - it has one drop zone. The movie has 28 chapters so there are five of them, but so far I've added only one montage of photos to each menu page - it's a "mobile" quality in media browser and ave only 10 - 20 MB, then one song. On average these movie clips are 1:00 to 2:00 min long and the music is cut to that length. So, all told, it's probably less than 110 MB in files - but when I look at the project properties, the menus are 3301 MB!!!
The movie itself is only 1.1 GB so what is going on?
It's preventing me from doing the project and I've got no idea why it's making the menu size so much larger than the file sizes?
Can you please help me figure out what to do?
Alexa

The 2 min clips were natively 2 min - I had each one separate and actually converted to media browser in "mobile" size (b/c the drop zone was 4 x 6 in size in the theme). They were tiny - in most cases I was shortening the audio (e.g. the song was 4 minutes and I was setting the loop to only 1:30 b/c that's how long the video clip was on the menu).
BUT, to resolve the question (I always like to post the answer) - I ended up duplicating the project to try to reimport the video. It was a fresh iDVD project and I happened to click on the project tree of screens - and, lo and behold, the ENTIRE menu was duplicated for some reason (and the movie, actually). I went back to the original and it was the same! I have no idea how that would happen do you? It only had one main menu screen - and then an entire duplicate menu - which I wouldn't even know how to access if I didn't see it in the project menu tree?
The only think of is that at one point I added a title menu link to the scene selection - it gave me a warning that my menu was more than 12 minutes, did I want to fix or ignore and fix later - which confused me b/c it was under 12 min, then but I clicked ignore. Does that create an alternate title menu and send people back to something else?
Anyway, I deleted the entire extra scene selection menus (5 of them) and it was back to under 4 GB.
So, I was able to burn, but still wondering about creating the "title menu" link on scene selections? It drives me crazy that it doesn't automatically do that so I like to add "main menu" links.
Thanks for your help!
Alexa

In CS6, JavaScript Running MUCH Slower than ActionScript

Hi All,
I am finding that in CS6, JS code runs MUCH slower than ActionScript code. I don't want to double-post here - Full details may be found where I posted them in the InDesign Scripting forum at - CS6 JavaScript Running Much Slower than ActionScript, before I realized that this forum might be more appropriate.
The basic gist of it is that I had a Flex/ActionScript Extension, which I obviously needed to start converting to JavaScript in advance of the next version not supporting ActionScript. I converted 20,000 lines of my business logic code from ActionScript to JavaScript (grrr...) - only to find that it now runs 5 times slower than it did in ActionScript.
What has been the experience of others who have converted large Extensions from ActionScript to JavaScript?
I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions.
TIA,
mlavie

Hi All,
I am finding that in CS6, JS code runs MUCH slower than ActionScript code. I don't want to double-post here - Full details may be found where I posted them in the InDesign Scripting forum at - CS6 JavaScript Running Much Slower than ActionScript, before I realized that this forum might be more appropriate.
The basic gist of it is that I had a Flex/ActionScript Extension, which I obviously needed to start converting to JavaScript in advance of the next version not supporting ActionScript. I converted 20,000 lines of my business logic code from ActionScript to JavaScript (grrr...) - only to find that it now runs 5 times slower than it did in ActionScript.
What has been the experience of others who have converted large Extensions from ActionScript to JavaScript?
I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions.
TIA,
mlavie

Why does this forum perform much slower than form forum in metalink?

I feel strongly that this forum performs much slower than the form forum in metalink where there are even more active and more issues created there.
I don't know why Oracle creates two form forum, which one is faster and another one is slower.
What is the difference b/w them besides here is jsp pages and over there is plsql pages?

Oracle certainly allows you to have users that do not have roles. Or users that don't have any system privileges. Or users that don't have any object privileges.
If you want the query to return a row for every row in DBA_USERS, you would need to outer join all the other tables to DBA_USERS.
Justin

Why is my iPhone 5 S WiFi speed 50% slower than my MacBook Air 2012?

Why is my iPhone 5 S WiFi speed 50% slower than my MacBook Air 2012?

Hello jagimc,
Thanks for using Apple Support Communities.
For more information on this, take a look at this article:
iOS: Troubleshooting Wi-Fi networks and connections
http://support.apple.com/kb/ts1398
Wi-Fi disconnects, or signal strength is less than expected
Move closer to the Wi-Fi router (access point).
Check for sources of potential interference.
Remove any case, stand, or other accessories from your iOS device and see if signal strength improves.
Reset network settings by tapping Settings > General > Reset > Reset Network Settings.
Note: This will reset all network settings including: previously connected Wi-Fi networks and passwords, recently used Bluetooth accessories, VPN and APN settings.
Best of luck,
Mario

LAN file transfer speed much slower than Internet file transfer speed

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for