PDA

View Full Version : How long for site upload ?


fuzzie bear
09-Apr-2005, 12:21 PM
How long should an average site upload take ? I'm using a normal internet connection and I uploaded my site last night at 10.00. At 1pm it still hadn't finished. I went to bed and then checked this morning and it had timed out.

Should uploads really take that long ?

PA.com
09-Apr-2005, 02:53 PM
It depends on how much data you have to upload, and what speed your internet connection is.

I use a broadband service that runs at 2.2Mbps, and I found this would upload data to my web server at around 40Mb/hour. Hence to load my 2 Gigabytes of data took about two and a half days.

I also had many messages about time-outs, many of these were resolved by simply clicking retry, but if the connection to the server is reset you will probably need to go back and click 'update' to start again.

Paul

jont
11-Apr-2005, 09:50 PM
Also depends on how much you have changed - a full site refresh or upload due to a change of say the Act_Primary template will be considerably longer than making a description change to one of the products.

Have you tried changing the Advanced FTP settings in the Network Setup facility?

webyourbusiness
11-Apr-2005, 10:19 PM
1Mbit/sec = 325 gigabytes of transfer in a month...

pa.com - your upstream must be CONSIDERABLY slower than 2.2mbits per second!

NormanRouxel
11-Apr-2005, 10:29 PM
Yep. That's the "A" in ADSL. It stands for Asymmetric (did I spel that rite?), meaning that upload and download speeds are not usually the same. On most accounts upload speed is restricted to allow more bandwidth for the downstream link.

jont
11-Apr-2005, 10:56 PM
Clever marketing spiel - about time ISP's listed both up and down speeds and not the "all out in a perfect world" figures they tend to feature - such as the car manufacturers have with the mixed urban figures - never going to be truly accurate but at least it will give a like for like comparison of services

wjcampbe
12-Apr-2005, 06:22 AM
ISPs also 'share' the capacity they sell you. For example I am on a 4 way share of 512/256 - and rather lucky. The standard BT packages are 20 way shares. Getting the 4 way only costs me an extra 100/year.

PA.com
12-Apr-2005, 09:59 AM
The upstream speed I found was considerably slower than 2.2Mbits/s. I read somewhere that your upstream speed will only ever be (at most) half of your download speed. It is the download speed that is always quoted by companies selling broadband (in my case BT), but I think that when uploading you do have to contend with capacity restrictions (as mentioned by others here) and timeouts and of course the fact that many other people may be trying to squirt information into the same ISP server that you are.
The figures I quoted earlier were just meant to illustrate approximately what I experienced during my upload, sorry if they were misleading in any way.

webyourbusiness
12-Apr-2005, 03:47 PM
about time ISP's listed both up and down speeds and not the "all out in a perfect world"

they do here in the states - at least those I do business with do...

Our office connection is a little odd though, as we're technically paying for one package, and have something altogether different due to us being hard-wired using cat5 to the ISP we use, who HAPPEN to be in the same building as us! ;)

I've just run a couple of speed tests using those found here:

http://www.dslreports.com/stest?more=1

and I get from 2300 kilobits/sec to 3500 kilobits/sec DOWN

up...

1,800 to 2191 kilobits/sec all figures likely to be low, as I'm not the only one in the office at the moment.

However, for my HOME DSL - as already pointed out, we have ADSL - which is ASYNCHRONOUS Digital Subscriber Line (at least that's how I recall it) - and my down is faster than my up - 1mbit down, and 768kbits up - although I had to pay extra to increase it... I know that I am NOT sharing this facility with anyone else in the neighborhood, as my upload/download speeds are pretty constant, regardless of the time of day/night, even though I can't remember the figures, they were EVER so slightly lower than the stated figures.

hth

regards

Greg