问题
Almost all of file transfer softwares like [NetSupport, Radmin, PcAnyWhere..] and also the different codes i used in my application, it slows down the transfer speed when you send alot of small sized files < 1kb like Folder of a game that has alot of files.
for example on a LAN (ethernet CAT5 cables) i send a single file, let say a video, the transfer rate is between 2MB and 9MB
but when i send a folder of a game that has alot of files the transfer rate is about 300kb-800kb
as i guess it's because the way of sending a file:
but when you use the regular windows [copy-paste] on a shared folder on the network, the transfer rate of sending a folder is always fast like sending a single file.
so im trying to develop a file transfer application using [WCF service c# 4.0] that would use the maximum speed available on LAN, and I'm thinking about this way:
Get all files from the folder.
if(FileSize<1 MB)
{
Create additional thread to send;
SendFile(FilePath);
}
else
{
Wait for the large file to be sent. // fileSize>1MB
}
void SendFile(string path) // a regular single file send.
{
SendFileInfo;
Open Socket and wait for server application to connect;
SendFileBytes;
Dispose;
}
but im confused about using more than one Socket for a file transfer, because that will use more ports and more time (delay of listening and accepting).
so is it a good idea to do it?
need an explaination about if it's possible to do, how to do it, a better protocol than tcp that would meant for this.
thanks in advance.
回答1:
It should be noted you won't ever achieve 100% LAN speed usage - I'm hoping you're not hoping for that - there are too many factors there.
In response to your comment as well, you can't reach the same level that the OS uses to transfer files, because you're a lot further away from the bare metal than windows is. I believe file copying in Windows is only a layer or two above the drivers themselves (possibly even within the filesystem driver) - in a WCF service you're a lot further away!
The simplest thing for you to do will be to package multiple files into archives and transmit them that way, then at the receiving end you unpack the complete package into the target folder. Sure, some of those files might already be compressed and so won't benefit - but in general you should see a big improvement. For rock-solid compression in which you can preserve directory structure, I'd consider using SharpZipLib
A system that uses compression intelligently (probably medium-level, low CPU usage but which will work well on 'compressible' files) might match or possibly outperform OS copying. Windows doesn't use this method because it's hopeless for fault-tolerance. In the OS, a transfer halted half way through a file will still leave any successful files in place. If the transfer itself is compressed and interrupted, everything is lost and has to be started again.
Beyond that, you can consider the following:
Get it working using compression by default first before trying any enhancements. In some cases (depending on size/no. files) it might be you can simply compress the whole folder and then transmit it in one go. Beyond a certain size, however, and this might take too long, so you'll want to create a series of smaller zips.
Write the compressed file to a temporary location on disk as it's being received, don't buffer the whole thing in memory. Delete the file once you've then unpacked it into the target folder.
Consider adding the ability to mark certain file types as being able to be sent 'naked'- i.e. uncompressed. That way you can exclude .zips, avis etc files from the compression process. That said, a folder with a million 1kb zip files will clearly benefit from being packed into one single archive - so perhaps give yourself the ability to set a min size beyond which that file will still be packed into a compressed folder (or perhaps a file count/size on disk ratio for a folder itself - including sub-folders).
Beyond this advice you will need to play around to get the best results.
回答2:
perhaps, an easy solution would be gathering all files together onto a big stream (like zipping them, but just append to make this fast) and send this one stream. This would give more speed, but will use up some cpu on both devices and a good idea how to separate all files in the stream.
But using more ports would, from what i know, only be a disadvantage, since there would be more different streams colliding and so the speed would go down.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10174379/file-transfer-with-maximum-speed-on-lan