7

How do I determine the optimal maximum simultaneous transfers in Filezilla?

FileZilla Settings Window

2
  • I think simply: it depends from your bandwidth...
    – stighy
    Sep 19, 2011 at 23:25
  • @stighty: How do I check that it depends on my bandwidth? How do I know what amount to choose given my bandwidth? How do I determine the optimal maximum simultaneous transfers in Filezilla? Sep 20, 2011 at 0:39

2 Answers 2

7
+50

For this, there is no right or wrong answer.

For me personally, I like setting this to 10.

However, you have to remember that many public/private servers have limits either on the total speed of individual connections, speed per ip address or amount of connection.

If they have total speed, quite frankly setting to 10 will only help in situations where you have many files (as it can save time on the authenticating step.

I just transferred 3235 files from my web server to local - and, whilst every file is very small, and the server has a gigabit link, there is about .5-1 second of authenticating and setting up the connection for each and every file which you just can't help when using FTP. By setting 10 files, I greatly increase the overall time of downloading all the files.

enter image description here

In addition, the reason I like setting this to 10 is because, when you connect to some servers, it is possible (due to many factors) to start a transfer at a very low speed (e.g. the server may be under load), and the more connections you have open, the higher the chance of utilising higher speeds, due to the fact that they may be equally sharing the speed between connections (which is quite common).

With the exception of a couple of sites that do have transfer limits, I personally set this to 10 on my machine and have for many years. I recommend you do the same - and check the rules of the server you are connecting to as they may have rules. (or no rules, but, just limit you anyway!).

Note that if you are only transferring a few (smallish) files, this really will not make much of a difference at all.

As for I/O, again, this is a hint to try and get a bit more out of the target server. It is highly possible to get the same speed from a single connection as with 10. Windows has a great read/write cache ability and I highly doubt that this will be a bottleneck. If you do want to test, you can always fire up Process Explorer and look at the I/O graph to see if it is anywhere near max.

2
  • I think much of this is unnecessary -- the OP's question is about the number of connections -- it has nothing to do with bandwidth. The only limitations in this regard are disk IO (those simultaneous connections [uploads/downloads] have to be reading/writing somewhere) and processing power.
    – Uninspired
    Sep 20, 2011 at 0:26
  • @Uninspired: He has misread my question at first and has now adjusted. Can you outline this in your own answer? How do I notice when disk I/O or processing could be a bottleneck for a specific setting? Or should I put up a test and see how long it takes to transfer something like 20 files of 40 MB? Sep 20, 2011 at 0:33
1

I add my voice to William Hilsum in saying that there is no right or wrong answer here, since it all depends on the speed of the source(s).

Basically, if your connection to any one source is as fast as your bandwidth allows, then there is no reason to have more than one transfer at a time. Having more than one transfer will then only place unneeded burden upon your network card and actually slow-down the total transfer bandwidth.

Having 10 simultaneous transfers only makes sense if each of the servers can only manage one-tenth of the bandwidth, so that together you make a full use of your entire bandwidth.

I wouldn't worry too much about disk usage, as the local disk is probably faster than the network and can keep up with it no matter the demand.

In conclusion, the maximum number : 10, only makes sense when dealing with slow sources. A lower value might actually get you some small improvement, but which will probably be hardly measurable at all. So leaving this value as 10 is practically good enough.

4
  • What happens if the server is under burden and is equally giving out bandwidth to all of its connections? ... More connections can always help! (excluding times when there is only a handful of files). Sep 20, 2011 at 15:16
  • @William Hilsum: The time has come that we actually agreed on something, and you are not satisfied. What I was saying is that 10 may be too much, but that lowering it may have a very small and maybe hardly detectable effect. If for example one can gain 1% in bandwidth, this is still not worth the effort.
    – harrymc
    Sep 20, 2011 at 18:23
  • mc... huh? I have changed my answer slightly but I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say... There is a lot more to it than just total bandwidth. e.g. in my example, I was transferring 3k+ files and the negotiating can take a while per file - even though it will not download any faster as far as KB/s, it took a hell of a lot of time off the process. Sep 20, 2011 at 19:19
  • @William Hilsum: You should also make the same test, but with many LARGE files. I think the results would then be somewhat different if the connection to the server is fast.
    – harrymc
    Sep 21, 2011 at 6:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .