I am currently building a modded skyrim and downloading tons of mods but ever since the Nexus changed its server i've been getting horrible download speeds , i have already used the speed troubleshooter to help diagnose and posted to the forum page and i know it takes time to solve issues like this ; I've been getting very slow speeds ranging from 80 to 10KB/sec even during the late night , would a premium membership , with the "uncapped" speed help on this or it would be just the same ? I Really feel like helping this site with a premium account for me and a friend which also download lots of things from here but i'm skeptical if it will yeld faster downloads at all. The Average mod file size from the things im downloading (Mainly Retex or Hair and armor packs) is over 100MB and with these slow speeds its taking forever to acquire all the mods i want.
I get speeds over 100kb/s, even without a premium membership. (which I can tolerate....) There is something else going on there with your download speeds..... Wonder if someone between you, and here, is throttling downloads.... (doesn't really make sense... but, there ya go.) Don't have a bandwidth cap on your service do you?
Average Download Speed Kb S
Download File 🔥 https://byltly.com/2yGAqg 🔥
No Bandwith cap at all , throttled connection is definitely possible but the Nexus sites are the only place i have slow speeds , generaly ISPs throttle popular sites like facebook or youtube , i will look further into this possibility.
But yeah , the speeds at the test are correct however when trying to download real mods i get less than 50KB/Sec , i will keep trying to download and stop bothering you guys , patience is a virtue as they say...
I understand that using current speed for the chart can result in jittery line. But using overall average speed is unacceptable. If current speed is not an option, a one-second average could be used instead.
I'm basing this on memory and some old threads, so I may be wrong, but I don't think it is the overall average speed that it graphs, but a windowed average. Essentially, it smooths out small spikes in the graph. But that may be wrong, as I say.
(We might revisit the graph one day and snaz it up, and maybe change this aspect as well, but personally, I don't see any utility from having the graph on and turn it off to make the dialog use less space, so it's a low priority for me, and I think Jon is happy with it as it already is.)
Using a very large window is confusing, misleading and plain wrong. Current speed is 23 KB/s but the chart is showing the speed of 4000 MB/s that's slowly going down and will reach 3000 KB/s in 15 minutes.
(That's what I do myself! I'm not sure any argument about the utility of what the graph shows, or could show, makes sense as the graph is not going to be that useful for most file copies whatever it shows. What would you do with the information a graph displays, over and above the numeric values? Maybe it's useful for FTP transfers. But it's really just eye candy; something to look at while the copy is happening. I'd rather have a smaller copy dialog, so I turn it off. For diagnosing disk performance, the graphs in Task Manager or Resource Monitor give a better view and include all software accessing the disk.)
In telecommunications, data transfer rate is the average number of bits (bitrate), characters or symbols (baudrate), or data blocks per unit time passing through a communication link in a data-transmission system. Common data rate units are multiples of bits per second (bit/s) and bytes per second (B/s). For example, the data rates of modern residential high-speed Internet connections are commonly expressed in megabits per second (Mbit/s).
In both the SI and ISQ, the prefix k stands for kilo, meaning 1000, while Ki is the symbol for the binary prefix kibi-, meaning 1024. The binary prefixes were introduced in 1998 by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and in IEEE 1541-2002 which was reaffirmed on 27 March 2008. The letter K is often used as a non-standard abbreviation for 1,024, especially in "KB" to mean KiB, the kilobyte in its binary sense. In the context of data rates, however, typically only decimal prefixes are used, and they have their standard SI interpretation.
Host networking speed must not necessarily correlate to your Tor connection speed as what @0brand has linked to already explained. To answer your question, my ISP provided connection provides me with an average download speed of 50Mbit/s, while Tor can as @0brand suggested range from 0 to sometimes even 2Mbit/s depending on route.
Both hard drives are the exact same model number, and both have 1TB of storage space. /dev/sda uses a blocksize of 4096. /dev/sda is a local drive and /dev/sdb is a remote caddy. I might be able to use the following protocols:
In my experience, I don't think there is something faster in the command line as dd. Adjusting the bs parameter can increase the speed, for example, I have 2 HDD that I know have a read/write speed greater than 100 MB/s so I do this:
The nice thing about pv apart from the speed is that it shows the progress, current speed, time since it began and ETA. In regards to HFS+ I would not know, am just trying to help on the "speed" part. With pv or a very optimized bs parameter, you can do a 4 TB drive in less than 7 Hours (6 Hours 50 Minutes at a current speed of 150 MB/s).
I did a couple of tests with the connection types you were using and others I had available. I was using the Asus Z87 Pro and the Intel DZ68DP. This were my results, but first we need to know that the theoretical speeds for many transfer rates (Raw speeds) are just that, theory. Doing real tests revealed they are between 40% to 80% of that raw speed. This tests can change depending on Device used, connection type, motherboard, type of connecting cable, filesystem type and more. With that in mind, this is what I got (I only tested Write speed to the Device, read is typically higher):
To copy a partition wholesale, use cat instead of dd. I ran benchmarks a while ago, copying a large file rather than a partition, between two disks (on the same disk, relative timings are different):
The conclusion from this benchmark is that the choice of block size for dd matters (but not that much), and cat automatically finds the best way to make a fast copy: dd can only slow you down. With a small block size, dd wastes time making lost of tiny reads and writes. With a large block size, one disk remains idle while the other is reading or writing. The optimal rate is achieved when one disk reads while the other disk writes.
To copy a partition, it may be faster to copy the files with cp -a. This depends on how many files there are and how much of the filesystem is free space. Copying files has an overhead that's roughly proportional to the number of files, but on the other hand copying free space wastes time.
The problem is your connection type, and block size. For the fastest results your block size should be half the lowest write speed you typically receive. This will give you a safe margin, but still allow for a large number; of course you need to have enough ram to hold the data too.
Usb 2.0 is 12 megabits per second (Mbps), Usb 2.0 High Speed is 480 Mbps. This is of course the raw speed; with 8 bits in a byte and framing overhead, the usable speed in MB/s is usually a decimal place over. So for example 480 raw, becomes 48MBs usable. Keep in mind that this is the mathematical best, in the real world it will be a bit lower. For usb 2.0 high speed connections you should expect somewhere around 30-35 MBs max write speed, provided the actual storage device can equate or surpass the connection speeds.
I'm moving Windows 7 from an HDD to SSD and found this and some other answers... Something I learned which might help others. In my case, the source drive is bigger, else I would have worked at the /dev/sda -> /dev/sdb device level.
All commands run as root. Partclone's ncurses UI (the -N option) said the transfer was 7GB/min and ended up at 5GB/min, which equates to 83MB/sec. The great part is partclone doesn't copy unused space, so this made the clone remarkably fast.
if the drive you are transferring to was previously used, it might have remnants of a GPT. Windows 7 factory installs are usually msdos/mbr partition tables. You'll need to remove the GPT fragments from the destination drive. This Unix & Linux QA helped me with this. You have to use gdisk on the device, use x then z and yes to zap GPT data and make sure you KEEP the MBR.
For anyone finding this thread, it is much easier and faster to just use a tool designed for data recovery like ddrescue. It tries to rescue the good parts first in case of read errors. Also you can interrupt the rescue at any time and resume it later at the same point.
Id recommend the input/read - file/disk to be on SATA to boost read speeds. The USB 2.0 High speed is good too as I am getting average speeds of 33816 kb/s with ddrescue compared to when the setting was USB 2.0 to SATA at 2014 kb/s
Use a different block size. It's the amount of data that dd reads at a time. If reading too little, a greater share of time is spent on the program logic and if read too much, much time is spent moving the large data around.
mbuffer is fastest. It is highly optimized, reads and writes in separate threads, uses an explicit buffer, and has other features like working over a network or calculating a checksum. I also use it when piping between, eg btrfs send and receive, to speed things up (via buffering) and see progress.
I had noticed since I got Epic Games Launchers that the downloads seemed much slower than they should. It would average about 1/3rd of my internet bandwidth witch on Centurylink is only 12Mbits/s / 3 = 4Mbits/s. I did some research on the forums, and found a partial fix.
STEP 1:
You need to add the following to your Engine.ini file.
You can find file the ini file in: %localappdata%\EpicGamesLauncher\Saved\Config\Windows
My Engine.ini file was blank. Yours may not be. Do not delete any entries, just add this to the end. 152ee80cbc
download unifi backup from cloud