[Sean Conolly]

"Risto Sainio" wrote in message
...
Sean Conolly wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Joe Kotroczo wrote:
On 30/12/2010 23:15, in article ,
"Les Cargill" wrote:

(...)

Even running a SAMBA server on a Mac is no guarantee of success. Once
that happens, the files will be interchangeable. It does take a while,
though. And I've had it fail.

Running a SAMBA server on a Mac? Why would one want to do that? All one
needs to do is on your Mac go into System Preferences/Sharing/File
Sharing/Options and tick the box that says "Share files and folders
using
SMB (Windows).

That is, in fact, actually running a SAMBA server, it's just that you
have a fancy GUI on top to keep you from seeing what is actually going
on.

Then put both the Windows box and the Mac on the same LAN or WLAN (cable
is
faster than WiFi of course), and copy the files from one machine to the
other.

Done.

SMB on the mac is pretty solid and reliable. It's not as solid and
reliable
as NFS on the PC, but setting it up, as you have pointed out, is very
easy to
do.

It is MUCH more reliable than directly reading and writing ntfs volumes
on the Mac, which is an unfortunate side effect of Microsoft not
releasing details on ntfs internals causing all of the third-party ntfs
drivers to be
based on reverse-engineering. The reverse-engineering gets better every
day but it's still not good enough that I'd stake a job on it.
--scott

If you're going over a network you can always use scp to do the job.
Either something like WinSCP, or do what I do and install the cygwin ssh
daemon. Over a Gbit hub you can get 70 MBytes / sec.

Sean
In a local network I would use FTP as it does not (de)encrypt the data and
one might be able to achieve even higher throughput over the network. A
Gbit should give some 90-100 MBytes/sec.

Encryption is really not much overhead on modern CPU's, so I don't worry
about it. I use -c'blowfish' on older systems to reduce CPU load.

Not sure about Mac's but out of the box Windows and Linux only get around
40MB/s over GB, unless you tweak the TCP parameters a bit. 70 MB/s is easy
just from adjusting the TX buffer, but I'm sure there's more available.

Sean