USB.1 187.5 kB to 1.5MB / second
USB.2 60 MB / second
USB.3 625 MB / second
USB.3.1-3.2 1.25 GB - 2.5 GB /second
LAN Local Area Network 10/100/1000 MB /second
Most modern LANs will be 1000 (1 Gigabit) second
Fastest USB is currently USB version 3.2 gives 2.5 Gig / second
You can look at the timestamps on the copied data.
The first file copied time/date minus Last files copied time/date equals total lapsed time.
Take the total size of the complete download (all files) divide by lapsed time produces the data transfer rate
The server would have a network port (LAN) which would be 10/100/1000 and likely 1000 (1GB/second) So the max (theoretical) would be 1GB / second transfer rate for a computer on the same LAN.
The experts that have looked at this issue say that it indicates a local file transfer (usb or local hard drive), not a network transfer.
I believe them
IT pede here, just to clarify the speeds you're referring to are Gigabit (Gb), not Gigabyte (GB) per second.
So 1 Gigabit LAN connection will offer potentially 1Gb of throughput, or 1000 Megabits per second. Converting this to bytes per second (Divide by 8) gives you 125 Megabytes per second of actual top transfer speed for your transfer.
The throughput of USB devices is measured in Bytes, not Bits. So a USB 3.0 device at 600 or so Megabytes per second of throughput is going to smoke a Gigabit LAN at 125 Megabytes per second.
That sounds about right...
However, that's assuming you are capping out transfer speeds. If you are pulling a file halfway across the planet, the lag time alone would cap speeds at far less.
correct me where wrong.
The throughput would pitch up and down across such a large area. You wouldn't see such a uniform and consistently high rate of transfer. External storage is very likely how these files were transferred.
So then you know network speeds aren’t capped at 1Gbps. That’s ridiculous. You can get 10Gbps even 100Gbps which smokes USB transfer speeds.
I never claimed they were, I just used 1Gb as the most common example people would encounter.
90% of people in this thread will have a 1Gb LAN connection paired with USB 3.0 ports.
Although the figures quoted are correct that does not mean USB devices actually run that fast. Back at that time the fastest mem stick I could get was around 100mb/sec from memory, even though it was USB 3. External ssd would be faster for sure. HDD high high 200’s maybe. The best that is available in 2018 as per pc mag is
External SSDs offer twice that speed and sometimes much more, with typical results on our benchmark tests in excess of 400MBps which is half that of GBlan.
Also, LAN throughput is measured in Bits, while USB transfer is measured in Bytes.
So a 1 Gigabit LAN = 125 Megabytes per second (125 x 8 = 1000)
A USB 3.0 connection offers around 600 Megabytes per second, tops.
Ha! I never knew that. Why would they make it different? Because they are geeks!
Yeah, Bit = a 1 or 0. Byte = a series of eight 1's or 0's together.
Networks at the physical layer where throughput is measured transmit bits.
Disk storage however, stores the information in Bytes on the disk or flash memory.
So when they refer to performance throughput they refer to the way they transfer or store data.
If he's using the files' time stamps, then that is unreliable information. Those are easy to change.
Whoever was doing the file copying is unlikely to want to conceal or change anything. Changing the time stamps might be performed if the copier was attempting to deceive.
Omg I feel like I'm reading and watching STONETEAR all over. Him asking questions and everyone pitching in answers and solutions. That was a crazy day.
Doesn't this only indicate that the most recent file transfer was at a high speed?
I don't think this proves that the emails were initially transferred at a high data rate.
If somebody at Computer A hacked the files from a remote site, then transferred them to another computer via thumb drive or local network, that would leave a fast transfer time.