What makes ShadowStream faster?

Hi there,

A quick query really just looking for some detail relating to why ShadowStream can supposedly operate up to 5x faster then iFTP when replicating over a WAN link?

While I post here - I have another post in the ImageManager section related to a ShadowStream problem (posted there before this forum was created specifically for ShadowStream, not sure if that can be moved here, as it is something we are still having troubles with.

Cheers

Forums:

Comments

STC-Derrick

ShadowStream handles latency better than FTP

There are a few advantages to using ShadowStream.  In this post I'm only covering why ShadowStream's speed advantage over iFTP improves when using a WAN link.

One weakness of FTP is that any time it percieves the connection as being slow it assumes that there is congestion and scales back so as to share the bandwidth nicely. This is a problem in high latency situations. Imagen you are sending a file from New York to some location in rural China. The latency will be high due to the distance the data needs to travel. FTP will see the high latency and scale back even if no one else is using the connection.

Shadow Stream uses a more sophisticated method to determine how much bandwidth to use and does not suffer from the same weakness. So in a high latency scenario Shadow Stream is vastly superior to FTP and using a WAN instead of a phsyical connection will increase the latency.  Whether the improvement you see reaches the 5x will depend on exactly how high your latency is and your rate of packet loss.

Terms and Conditions of Use - Privacy Policy - Cookies