Direct or Indirect Ethernet to new rMBP?

mneblett

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 7, 2008
369
0
I have a late 2013 15" rMBP. I usually connect wireless to a 2013 Time Capsule (5GHz ac).

Occasionally, I want/need to connect via a wired connection.

Currently, I have a USB 3.0 multi-port hub that also has Gigabit Ethernet, with a CAT 6 cable to the Time Capsule. The hub is connected to a USB 3 port of the rMBP (I've turned the wireless off to verify the ethernet connection is working).

My question: Would I get more transfer speed by connecting the CAT 6 cable directly to the rMBP (using the Apple Ethernet adapter, given the elimination of the ethernet port on the rMBP)?

My first thought is I wouldn't think so, given that USB 3.0 is (theoretically) 5 Gbps and GigE is 1 Gbps -- but I'm wondering whether any "translation" or other delay resulting from the hub being in the path is slowing transfers to the point that a direct connection is preferable.



p.s. -- As I finished typing the above, it dawned on me:

Is the Time Capsule's LAN connection the real transfer limitation? In other words, even with the Time Capsule's ethernet ports being "spec'd" as 1 Gbps, do they actually deliver 1 Gbps between LAN ports when transferring files from one computer to another over CAT 6 cables that meet at the Time Capsule?
 

mneblett

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 7, 2008
369
0
I think at these speeds, the bottleneck is the write speed on the drives now..
Thanks for the thought.

Both computers have SSD's and the read/write speeds are > .5 Gbps. I'm seeing considerably lower transfer rates, so I don't believe the drives are a bottleneck.


Anyone have any thoughts on whether the USB 3.0/Ethernet hub is slowing transfers enough to warrant directly connecting the rMBP via the Apple adapter?
 

GSPice

macrumors 68000
Nov 24, 2008
1,623
76
The Time Capsule "backbone" is not the problem. It's either the (other) computer, the type of file transfer, the drives, or the usb 3.0 adapter. I'd try the thunderbolt to ethernet adapter.

Just because the hub says usb 3.0 and gigabit, doesn't mean anything but that it can link to usb 3.0 and gigabit interfaces. I know you know that, but just saying.

----------

Time Capsule doesn't have SSD's though.. right?
You're right, and it's USB 2.0. But I don't think he's writing to the time capsule drive, he's just using the TC as a switch to transfer data to another machine.
 

mneblett

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 7, 2008
369
0
Just because the hub says usb 3.0 and gigabit, doesn't mean anything but that it can link to usb 3.0 and gigabit interfaces. I know you know that, but just saying.
Very good point.

----------

You're right, and it's USB 2.0. But I don't think he's writing to the time capsule drive, he's just using the TC as a switch to transfer data to another machine.
Exactly -- neither the TC's HDD nor its USB port are involved in the computer-to-computer transfers.

I'm just trying to understand whether there may be bottlenecks either at the hub or at the LAN-to-LAN junction at the TC, before I donate another $29 to the Mothership.

The point above about the actual transfer rate through the hub is making me lean toward trying the direct-via-Apple adapter route.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.