Copying files from one network drive to another

[Metspitzer]

Copying a file from my laptop to a network drive takes more time than
it does to copy a file from one desktop to another because the laptop
is wireless.

Using my laptop to copy a file from one desktop to another desktop can
take days. Shouldn't Win7 be able to just tell one desktop to
copy/move a file to another desktop without the data having to pass
through the laptop?

 

[Wolf K]

Copying a file from my laptop to a network drive takes more time than
it does to copy a file from one desktop to another because the laptop
is wireless.

Using my laptop to copy a file from one desktop to another desktop can
take days. Shouldn't Win7 be able to just tell one desktop to
copy/move a file to another desktop without the data having to pass
through the laptop?

Yes, if they are both on the network, and use the same router (wired or
wi-fi).

But it's more complicated than that if your machines use different
operating systems (even different versions of Windows). Without further
info from you, I'd say you need to reconfigure your network. You may
even have to make it "proper" network, that is, make on of your desktops
the network server. For this function, you don't need a super fast
machine, since most of the time all it will do is receive and transmit
data, so it's an ideal use for your oldst machine.

How do you set up a network that includes all your machines, you ask?
That depends, and I'm no expert. Ask again, with more info, maybe
someone here can help, or else seek out an NG about networking.

Good luck,
Wolf K.

 

[John Williamson]

Copying a file from my laptop to a network drive takes more time than
it does to copy a file from one desktop to another because the laptop
is wireless.

Using my laptop to copy a file from one desktop to another desktop can
take days. Shouldn't Win7 be able to just tell one desktop to
copy/move a file to another desktop without the data having to pass
through the laptop?

It's the way of the world, I'm afraid. If you've got Vista or Windows 7
Professional or better, you can set up a remote session on one of the
desktops and try the copy from there. That may solve your problem.

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/turn-on-remote-desktop-in-windows-vista/

The link is for Vista, but 7 is very similar.

Otherwise, install one of the many remote control applications, which
let you log on to a computer from elsewhere no matter what OS you're using.

 

[Char Jackson]

It's the way of the world, I'm afraid. If you've got Vista or Windows 7
Professional or better, you can set up a remote session on one of the
desktops and try the copy from there. That may solve your problem.

+1

When the OP is on machine A and wants to copy a file from machine B to
machine C, the data path is B-A-C, unfortunately. It has to pass
through machine A unless you initiate the transfer from B or C while
you're remotely controlling B or C.

 

[John Williamson]

+1

When the OP is on machine A and wants to copy a file from machine B to
machine C, the data path is B-A-C, unfortunately. It has to pass
through machine A unless you initiate the transfer from B or C while
you're remotely controlling B or C.

Still, *days* to transfer a single file? That sounds almost as if the
wireless is working through a USB port, and not even USB 2.

 

[Metspitzer]

Yes, if they are both on the network, and use the same router (wired or
wi-fi).

But it's more complicated than that if your machines use different
operating systems (even different versions of Windows). Without further
info from you, I'd say you need to reconfigure your network. You may
even have to make it "proper" network, that is, make on of your desktops
the network server. For this function, you don't need a super fast
machine, since most of the time all it will do is receive and transmit
data, so it's an ideal use for your oldst machine.

How do you set up a network that includes all your machines, you ask?
That depends, and I'm no expert. Ask again, with more info, maybe
someone here can help, or else seek out an NG about networking.

Good luck,
Wolf K.

Yeah, since one of the machines is XP and I am a novice at networking
that is not gonna happen.
Thanks everyone

At least newer versions do actually do it that way.

 

[Char Jackson]

Yeah, since one of the machines is XP and I am a novice at networking
that is not gonna happen.
Thanks everyone

At least newer versions do actually do it that way.

They actually don't/can't do it that way. Wolf was mistaken there...

 

[John Williamson]

Yeah, since one of the machines is XP and I am a novice at networking
that is not gonna happen.
Thanks everyone

At least newer versions do actually do it that way.

One of the machines being XP makes it very easy to set up a network.
Create a workgroup on that machine called, say WORKGROUP, then add all
the other machines to that workgroup using the file it offers to create
on either floppy or a USB stick. The only version of Windows I've had
problems doing this with is the Windows 7 Starter Edition.

If you want more details, feel free to ask.

The only hard bit is making sure that all the users have accounts on all
the machines, and that all the usernames and passwords are the same from
machine to machine.

 

[Metspitzer]

Still, *days* to transfer a single file? That sounds almost as if the
wireless is working through a USB port, and not even USB 2.

That was a gross exaggeration
Sorry

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

[snip]

At least newer versions do actually do it that way.

They actually don't/can't do it that way. Wolf was mistaken there...

They could.

I remember Novell's NCOPY command. If the source and destination
were both on the server, the copy would be done on the server only
with only status reports to the local system.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Char Jackson]

[snip]

At least newer versions do actually do it that way.

They actually don't/can't do it that way. Wolf was mistaken there...

They could.

I remember Novell's NCOPY command. If the source and destination
were both on the server, the copy would be done on the server only
with only status reports to the local system.

You're sidetracking the discussion, though. This is about Windows, and
it doesn't matter whether it's 7, Vista, XP, or whatnot. The only way
you're going to avoid a double traversal across the network is if the
source and destination are on the same drive. If you try to copy or
move something from one drive to another from across the network, even
if the source and destination drives are part of the same remote
computer system, it's going to send the file across the network twice.

 

[Wolf K]

On 08/05/2012 4:50 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
[...]

You're sidetracking the discussion, though. This is about Windows, and
it doesn't matter whether it's 7, Vista, XP, or whatnot. The only way
you're going to avoid a double traversal across the network is if the
source and destination are on the same drive. If you try to copy or
move something from one drive to another from across the network, even
if the source and destination drives are part of the same remote
computer system, it's going to send the file across the network twice.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of this. Or else I forgot. Maybe. ;-)

I suppose the cure is to use network-attached-storage.

Best,
Wolf K.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

[snip]

At least newer versions do actually do it that way.

They actually don't/can't do it that way. Wolf was mistaken there...

They could.

I remember Novell's NCOPY command. If the source and destination
were both on the server, the copy would be done on the server only
with only status reports to the local system.

You're sidetracking the discussion, though. This is about Windows, and
it doesn't matter whether it's 7, Vista, XP, or whatnot. The only way
you're going to avoid a double traversal across the network is if the
source and destination are on the same drive. If you try to copy or

Or if you have a program that does what NCOPY did.

move something from one drive to another from across the network, even
if the source and destination drives are part of the same remote
computer system, it's going to send the file across the network twice.

Nope. That it is not being done does not make it impossible.
After all, it was already done with Novell.

Such a program could check where the source and destination were.
If they were both remote, it could interact with services on the
containing machines to execute the copy and to get status reports
back. If either source or destination were local, then proceed as a
standard copy although I see no reason why the local service could not
be used.

Now that I think about it, it would be a useful utility.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Metspitzer]

[snip]

At least newer versions do actually do it that way.

They actually don't/can't do it that way. Wolf was mistaken there...

They could.

I remember Novell's NCOPY command. If the source and destination
were both on the server, the copy would be done on the server only
with only status reports to the local system.

You're sidetracking the discussion, though. This is about Windows, and
it doesn't matter whether it's 7, Vista, XP, or whatnot. The only way
you're going to avoid a double traversal across the network is if the
source and destination are on the same drive. If you try to copy or

Or if you have a program that does what NCOPY did.

move something from one drive to another from across the network, even
if the source and destination drives are part of the same remote
computer system, it's going to send the file across the network twice.

Nope. That it is not being done does not make it impossible.
After all, it was already done with Novell.

Such a program could check where the source and destination were.
If they were both remote, it could interact with services on the
containing machines to execute the copy and to get status reports
back. If either source or destination were local, then proceed as a
standard copy although I see no reason why the local service could not
be used.

Now that I think about it, it would be a useful utility.

While you are pondering that, consider cloud drives. The reason of
this comment was because it would be very nice to be able to move data
from one part of the Internet to a cloud drive without having to
download it to your computer first.

I would like to use Forte Agent on multiple machines. It sucks to
have to store the data on a local machine.

 

[Char Jackson]

[snip]

At least newer versions do actually do it that way.

They actually don't/can't do it that way. Wolf was mistaken there...

They could.

I remember Novell's NCOPY command. If the source and destination
were both on the server, the copy would be done on the server only
with only status reports to the local system.

You're sidetracking the discussion, though. This is about Windows, and
it doesn't matter whether it's 7, Vista, XP, or whatnot. The only way
you're going to avoid a double traversal across the network is if the
source and destination are on the same drive. If you try to copy or

Or if you have a program that does what NCOPY did.

The program is Windows Explorer. Other programs don't count,
especially programs that don't yet exist.

Nope. That it is not being done does not make it impossible.
After all, it was already done with Novell.

Nobody said it was impossible, but if you want me to, I will. With
Windows Explorer, it's impossible unless the source and destination
are on the same physical drive.

Such a program could check where the source and destination were.
If they were both remote, it could interact with services on the
containing machines to execute the copy and to get status reports
back. If either source or destination were local, then proceed as a
standard copy although I see no reason why the local service could not
be used.

I don't know how or why you got so sidetracked, but such is Usenet.

 

[Char Jackson]

On 08/05/2012 4:50 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
[...]

You're sidetracking the discussion, though. This is about Windows, and
it doesn't matter whether it's 7, Vista, XP, or whatnot. The only way
you're going to avoid a double traversal across the network is if the
source and destination are on the same drive. If you try to copy or
move something from one drive to another from across the network, even
if the source and destination drives are part of the same remote
computer system, it's going to send the file across the network twice.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of this. Or else I forgot. Maybe. ;-)

I suppose the cure is to use network-attached-storage.

NAS doesn't really change anything, does it? All of the same rules and
behaviors still apply.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

While you are pondering that, consider cloud drives. The reason of
this comment was because it would be very nice to be able to move data
from one part of the Internet to a cloud drive without having to
download it to your computer first.

Would you like it if I could remotely send data from someplace (maybe
evil) directly to *your* computer?

 

[Paul]

Copying a file from my laptop to a network drive takes more time than
it does to copy a file from one desktop to another because the laptop
is wireless.

Using my laptop to copy a file from one desktop to another desktop can
take days. Shouldn't Win7 be able to just tell one desktop to
copy/move a file to another desktop without the data having to pass
through the laptop?

A C
\ /
\ /
B

If you're sitting at "B", with Windows File Sharing, it would take
a copy from A to B, plus a copy from B to C, to achieve copying A to C.

But, if you use TeamViewer (or one of a bunch of programs like it), and
remotely control the computers, you could remote into A, and
ask A to transfer to C.

A-----C


B

Years ago, I used VNC (free) and Timbuktu (payware), but there are
a whole bunch of them listed here. I don't bother with stuff like
that on my current computers. My last "remoting in" was quite
a few years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software

So with the right software, as long as the machines are powered up,
you could "take control" of any of them.

HTH,
Paul

 

[Metspitzer]

Would you like it if I could remotely send data from someplace (maybe
evil) directly to *your* computer?

No

 

[Metspitzer]

A C
\ /
\ /
B

If you're sitting at "B", with Windows File Sharing, it would take
a copy from A to B, plus a copy from B to C, to achieve copying A to C.

But, if you use TeamViewer (or one of a bunch of programs like it), and
remotely control the computers, you could remote into A, and
ask A to transfer to C.

A-----C


B

Years ago, I used VNC (free) and Timbuktu (payware), but there are
a whole bunch of them listed here. I don't bother with stuff like
that on my current computers. My last "remoting in" was quite
a few years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software

So with the right software, as long as the machines are powered up,
you could "take control" of any of them.

HTH,
Paul

Yeah, I used to use VLC for that reason. Virus software always
complained that VLC was bad.

I may give Team Viewer a try.

Thanks