Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
Hello
Probably a simple answer for the IT folk and I don't work in IT so I don't know.
Two diagrams below. If there's a server in US I'm networked to (I'm in UK) and I select a folder on a US drive to move to another folder on US drive, which way does it go? I mean just going onto the network drive and just dragging it across, not FTPing into it or anything like that. Again, this may seem stupid to some  
OR
I only ask because it takes an age.
Thanks
[Edited on 21-02-2014 by Brett]
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
Depends; how are you connected to the 'US' servers - do you RDS to one server or are network shares from both 'US' servers attached to your 'UK' system? Or another method?
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
I don't remote into it or anything. That was kind of why I ask. If just opening the drives and moving the folder were like the second pic, then I would've assumed remoting in would be the answer to my speed issue. Currently it's taking 3days to transfer 1.5tb of data.
[Edited on 21-02-2014 by Brett]
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
If you're doing it via network shares (or drives, basically via SMB, which I think you are as you are using \\ on your paths!), then Windows will use a sort of cache to move the files, so they will be coming down from the server your transferring from to your computer, then upload from your computer to the 2nd server.
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
That's what I assumed was happening, hence taking an age to transfer. So if I remoted into US network it should speed things up considerably?
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
Remote Desktop into one of the servers and do it there. That'll be the quickest way.
If you launch the copy from YOUR windows desktop in the UK then it'll be the same story
[Edited on 21-02-2014 by pow]
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
Oh right, so even if I remoted into one of the machines that's on the local us network it'd still be as slow?  There's no way I'll be able to remote direct to server.
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
What do you mean by remoting into
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
Well like remote desktop, so its like I'm sat at a US machine.
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
That would work better yes, as I assume the two servers would be on the same LAN?
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
There's a server in the US with a NAS attached. All the folders we're using in the UK are on said NAS. Once it starts filling up, we simply create a folder on the same NAS called Archive then move the older data from one folder to another on the same drive (which then gets removed and backed up on request by some US douche). Like I said 1.5tb takes around 3days. It shouldn't be like that should it, which is how my question has come about.
[Edited on 21-02-2014 by Brett]
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
Remote onto a US machine, it would be MUCH quicker providing it's all on the same LAN 
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
That is the answer I was after haha
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
Didn't want to give you false information like 
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
So just to rephrase slightly so I don't look like a fucktard in the IT office. I want remote acces to a US machine on the same LAN as the US server that's hosting the NAS?
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
NAS and the server if that's possible.
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
Lol what do you mean? Was what I said not right? Remote access to machine on same LAN as server that NAS is connected to?
[Edited on 21-02-2014 by Brett]
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
If it's a NAS box it'll be attached to the network yes? So the server and the NAS box are attached to the same network? So you want a machine on that same network
|
willay
Moderator
Organiser: South East, National Events
Premium Member
Registered: 10th Nov 02
Location: Roydon, Essex
User status: Offline
|
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
Oh yes, of course lol
IT seem like complete bellends here anyway 
Above is 110% correct yes, that if we used a machine on the same LAN as the NAS then it'd be quicker right? So it wasn't having to travel over the internet kind of thing? If LAN is local what would the whole network of servers around the globe be refered to as?
The way it's setup as I described, it's absolutely definitely coming down from NAS over net connection to my machine to go back up to NAS via net connection?
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
Yes... use a machine local to the NAS - will be much quicker
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
100%? Could you answer that other bit about what the whole network of global machines would be refered to as well please? I need to put a case together to go over ITs head here now, very unreceptive. Only been here a few weeks too, such a great way to make new friends
Is the whole global network a WAN, which is a collection of LANs at different locations connected via bridges?
[Edited on 21-02-2014 by Brett]
|
pow
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 06
Location: Hazlemere, Buckinghamshire
User status: Offline
|
I don't know the specifics of how you're two sites are connected but I guess if you were working from home you'd be using a host to LAN VPN, if the two offices are parmanetly linked there would be a permanent LAN to LAN VPN link configured on the gateway of each network.
Any traffic outside of your LAN is generally concidered on the WAN (wide area network).
|
willay
Moderator
Organiser: South East, National Events
Premium Member
Registered: 10th Nov 02
Location: Roydon, Essex
User status: Offline
|
getting serious in here
|
willay
Moderator
Organiser: South East, National Events
Premium Member
Registered: 10th Nov 02
Location: Roydon, Essex
User status: Offline
|
just to backup Pow's answer if you are copying files from one server to another from a workstation viewing via Windows Explorer the data flow wil be from server1 to you, then up to server 2.
If you want to speed up copying times dramatically then you need access to a workstation/server in the same physical/geographical location. Can depend alot on how the network is setup.
When you do your copy operation from current->archive, you should do it from the server's console (the one 'attached to the nas'). So for example if the server is a Windows machine you should get remote access to it via Remote Desktop Protocol or VNC, then browse to the NAS to make the copy operations.
[Edited on 21-02-2014 by willay]
|
