Folding increases system performance

dodo

I was transferring large files accross my home network, and thought that disabling folding might make it go faster. However, when i closed F@H, network efficiency went down 10%! I thought it was a fluke, but then i went back and turned folding on again: the network went up 10%. Can anyone explain this?

Files are being transferred to a winme machine from a winxp machine (winme is the machine that folding was disabled on). 100Mbit network


~dodo

dodo

Here's a screenshot from the winxp box, the increase is from when i turned folding back on.

muddocktor

Wow, I never have seen something like this before, but that's really cool. I have no idea what causes that to happen though.

profdlp

That's a new one.

I can't wait to see what some of our S-M network heavyweights think about this.

TBonZ

It has to be karma, I fold, therefore my computer just performs better.



:confused2

Straight_Man

dodo wrote:

I was transferring large files accross my home network, and thought that disabling folding might make it go faster. However, when i closed F@H, network efficiency went down 10%! I thought it was a fluke, but then i went back and turned folding on again: the network went up 10%. Can anyone explain this?

Files are being transferred to a winme machine from a winxp machine (winme is the machine that folding was disabled on). 100Mbit network


~dodo

Um, folding does keep the bridge active, pretty much, so XP and Me do not shut it down and then have to restart for each file transfer. It polls every so often, every time it tries to send a WU and checks for unsent ones, it tells the NIC to talk on your LAN. When NIC drivers stay active, the next transfer starts up faster than if XP shut them down to sleeping and went and did somehting else meantimes. But do not expect things folding does nto do to be faster, they might be slower since XP has to devote resources to keeping the netowork link active.

Yes, the specific things you mention CAN help make happen what you see happening, but other things have to in balance be not running as fast. If you were to transfer a folder of 100 files, instead of file by file, that should give you about the same performance you are seeing.

Second, AFAIK, what you are literally seeing in what you posted in graphic is load on the network bridge, or data flow volume of total capacity, and part of that is FOLDING's data flow. So a network bridge could be loaded ten percent more while file transfer TIMEs change not at all or in fact slow down.

IF box is transferring more faster and the percentage of load is up, then XP is not shuttign down its connect drivers and software to do other things, in a sense you have forced it to keep the network drivers active and gotten a bit of effectiveness simply by keeping them open.

HTH to let you understand wassup with the graphic.

mmonnin

Sure wish it was like that last night when the network was getting rapped from all the file copying.

csimon

I get more frags in ET when I fold!!! =oP

dodo

John_D wrote:

Second, AFAIK, what you are literally seeing in what you posted in graphic is load on the network bridge, or data flow volume of total capacity, and part of that is FOLDING's data flow. So a network bridge could be loaded ten percent more while file transfer TIMEs change not at all or in fact slow down.

Folding takes up as much as 10% of my network bridge? Wouldnt that be like 10Mb/s? or am i not understanding that correctly?

Holding the network connection open seems to be a good explaination though.

~dodo