Good eveing guys!
I have to say first that I've only known Royal TS for a short time, but I'm absolutely thrilled.
It's pretty, customizable and has everything I need.
However, I noticed, in addition to the fact that the Royal TS generally offers moderate performance (slow start, it feels like it eats up resources).
That the FTP performance for me is very, very bad.
I installed Filezilla for comparison and have to admit that Filezilla transfers about 10 files per second, while the FTP connection via Royal TS moves 1 to 3 files per second (Measured with the same source, the same server and the same files).
With a bad internet connection, I have often experienced that some files take longer than a second for the transfer to start. In this case, Filezilla is also slower, but it is really very, very sluggish.
I would very much like to solve the problem, because I believe that Royal TS is great for my small company, especially with regard to the server application, but I have a lot of customers that I have to supply via FTP and therefore unfortunately need a more solid FTP performance.
I have generally noticed that less powerful computers are not even able to establish an FTP connection.
It then loads forever until the timeout occurs (same document and configuration on all test devices).
I am looking forward to the answer.
If more information is required, please let us know.
thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it. Unfortunately it's not really actionable from our side. Performance can be impacted by many things. From the remote system to the configuration of the client. In addition to that, it's hard for us to change anything in that stack because it's based on a 3rd party library (Rebex).
It would be very helpful if you could demonstrate/reproduce the issue in a way that we (or the vendor) can also reproduce the issue. What I mean is to provide a publicly available FTP server and share the exact FileZilla and Royal TS FTP configuration you use to reproduce the issue. When we can reproduce the issue(s), we can then open a support case with the vendor to investigate.
Is this something you could do?
thank you very much for your reply.
Sure, i could do that. But that needs a little time. I would rent a vps for a month to do that.
This is not a problem which happen only on one computer or to one ftp destination.
I can not imagine how it is possible nobody else recognized things like that before.
Doesnt matter if i use Laptops, Computers or Servers. All instances of Royal run same.
Just to test. I installed a CMS on a customers server (had to transfer round about 16k files cia FTP).
From my home computer (Located in Indonesia):
Royal took me round about 4 Hours
Filezilla round about 50 Minutes.
Thats quite normal because the latency to germany is not the best. So i tested again:
From a remote computer (Located in Germany):
Royal took me round about 1 Hours
Filezilla round about 15 Minutes.
Should be possible to reproduce on all systems you use...
I also compared with WinSCP and the situation is the same.
Is there anything else i should try again?
Did you try changing the settings under Advanced -> Connection -> Use large buffers for file transfers and dvanced -> FTP -> Transfer Mode ? Do they change the result?
Large Buffers is already enabled.
The modes sadly do not change the situation.
When i try to chose "stream" it resets the setting automatically back to the default after clicking OK.
When i chose Block, it seems to load forever without doing anything.
Again i compared with the other FTP tools and both start after a few seconds with the transfer with a speed i think its ok for indonesia <-> Germany.
I can give you a teamviewer session if you want to see it live :).
There was indeed an issue with the configuration page. The transfer mode was not saved correctly. Not sure if it would change the behavior though. I think the best way forward is to setup a repro so that we can look into it.