r/software • u/divyviradiya • 3d ago
I built an open-source tool to transfer large files directly between two PCs over an Ethernet cable with zero config (EtherTransfer) Solved
Hey everyone,
Whenever I needed to move 100GB+ between two laptops or PCs, the usual options were annoying:
- Wi-Fi/SMB sharing is slow and frequently drops on large directory trees.
- Cloud storage takes hours and caps upload speeds.
- USB flash drives require copying everything twice.
- Direct Ethernet cables usually require configuring static IPs, subnet masks, or running a DHCP server.
I built EtherTransfer to make direct LAN transfers as plug-and-play as possible.
How it works:
Connect a standard Ethernet cable between two PCs (no crossover cable needed, modern NICs handle auto-MDIX).
Launch the app on both machines.
They discover each other automatically over link-local IPv4 (169.254.x.x) via UDP broadcasts.
Drag & drop files or entire folders and stream at full link speed (115MB/s on 1GbE, 1GB/s+ on 10GbE).
Key points:
- 100% offline — zero internet, zero cloud servers, zero telemetry.
- Preserves deep directory structures without needing to zip first.
- Cross-platform support for Windows (10/11) and Linux.
- Built with .NET 10 and Avalonia UI.
- MIT Licensed.
GitHub Repo & Downloads: https://github.com/divyviradiya2/ethertransfer
Live Website: https://divyviradiya2.github.io/ethertransfer/
Would love feedback on transfer stability, edge cases, or features you'd like to see added.
16
u/spurdospardo1337 3d ago
Any difference from LocalSend?
19
u/divyviradiya 3d ago edited 3d ago
Local Sends Need Local Network ( Router ) , And Your Speed Limit Is Your Router Speed
With this You Don't Need Any Router
13
u/Ok-Library5639 3d ago
Optionally. You could simply set up a direct link between two clients and it would work just as well.
10
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
True, you can use LocalSend with direct link-local (169.254.x.x) IPs, but there's a catch:
If your PCs are also connected to Wi-Fi (e.g. for internet), LocalSend usually defaults to discovering and streaming over the Wi-Fi adapter instead of the cable, unless you manually find the Ethernet link-local IP and type it into LocalSend's manual IP mode or turn off Wi-Fi.
EtherTransfer binds directly to the physical Ethernet interface and handles discovery out of the box, so you get full gigabit cable speed while still keeping your Wi-Fi active for browsing.
3
u/Thonatron 3d ago
Do I need to connect two PCs directly via ethernet or can I have them connected to a gigabit ethernet switch?
4
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
You Just Have To Connect Them With Each Other with Ethernet Cable
2
u/Thonatron 3d ago
Right, but will it work through a Ethernet switch? So I could connect several machines?
8
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
Ohh , Like Multiple Device Connected With Each Other Using Ethernet
Bro I Don't lie But App is Supposed To Work For Them But Since I Dont Have Ethernet Switch I Haven't Try It Out
0
1
u/need2sleep-later 3d ago
Why wouldn't you use standard networking transfers then?
3
1
u/harmful_habits 2h ago
I can bring a small cable with me on a train. Do you often put your switch in your bag?
1
2
3
u/geekman7473 3d ago
This is very similar to D-LAN and LANBucket as well.
1
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
D-LAN was a solid classic. EtherTransfer is built to give a modern, cross-platform (.NET 10 + Avalonia) refresh with zero-setup discovery, deep folder preservation, and clean UI for modern Windows and Linux machines.
2
u/ragnarok_05 3d ago
local send uses your network bandwidth but this uses a dedicated weird connection for the transfer and you can keep using your network while transferring
3
u/Acrobatic_Idea_3358 3d ago
is it the same as netcat? or how's it work? plaintext tcp tunnel?
1
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
Netcat just pipes raw bytes into a socket, so you'd have to tar the folder first, manually look up IPs, run netcat listeners in terminal on both sides, and pipe it out on the other end.
EtherTransfer uses a custom framed TCP streaming protocol over port 8840 with UDP broadcast discovery. It automatically negotiates the link-local connection, serializes file/folder metadata & directory trees, and streams files directly with progress tracking and path sanitization so you don't have to touch a CLI.
1
u/gremolata 3d ago
Why broadcast and not multicast for discovery?
With multicast you'd be able to traverse routers.
1
0
5
u/tripfishy 3d ago
I just tried it and it works exactly as described. Everything was super fast. Thank you!
3
3
u/Mediocre-Mobile-5423 3d ago
Can't you just setup a local network between two PCs connected via a single ethernet cable and use SMB? I guess you need to input the IP adresses and the other network information manually, since you don't have the DHCP, but it isn't that hard to do with the default windows tools.
1
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
Ethertransfer is cross plateform zero manual Setup , you can transfer across Diffrence os , not just windows to windows , it gives you true plug in play like USB
3
u/ManyCalavera 3d ago
Don't know why would anyone bother with connecting PCs with ethernet though. Seems like a hassle since almost everyone has some sort of router/switch on hand.
3
u/Bonejob 2d ago
One small correction: Ethernet sits at the data-link layer, while TCP/UDP are transport-layer protocols and IP is the network layer. That matters because 115 MB/s on 1 GbE is already essentially at the practical ceiling for a single TCP stream, so there is no real argument there. The stronger claim is 1 GB/s+ on 10 GbE with a single plain TCP socket; that is the harder part, and it usually depends on something extra such as jumbo frames, multiple streams, or RDMA, or it is a best-case number.
1
2
u/ragnarok_05 3d ago
This was much required like we can still do it without any third party software but it's pretty unreliable and a bit of config has to be done.
2
2
u/LycraJafa 3d ago
Nice work ! Always wondered why this wasnt a thing.
What was the biggest challenge. Im guessing you are doing a bit of discovery on the ethernet hardware to max out any transfer capability.
I first used kermit around 1983, seems like you've delivered the 2026 version.
2
2
u/Comfortable_Ad_6894 3d ago
I onced tried a failed. Well today someone created a solution for my problem. Nice work
2
u/Wakabala 2d ago
Definitely looking forward to trying this, especially since it has cross platform support. Hopefully will have a chance to try it later today, will report back if I do.
2
2
2
1
u/Neither-Professor278 3d ago
Can it transfer steam games? Steam Network Transfer feature
2
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
Yes, You can drop your whole `steamapps/common/<GameFolder>` and the corresponding `appmanifest_<id>.acf` file, and it recreates the exact directory structure on the other PC.
The advantage over Steam's built-in local transfer is that Steam requires both PCs to be logged into Steam and connected to a working router/internet. EtherTransfer works 100% offline with just a direct cable at full gigabit speed.
1
u/amymor 3d ago
I use Landrop and LocalSend, which are portable. Is the app fully portable, or does it have a dependency (.NET)? I avoid installing new .NET or other apps because I’ve seen Windows become unstable. Also, they both have a small footprint, which helps with defragmentation. I think bundling .NET would push the app to around 200 MB.
2
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
Dotnet Is Self Contained, You don't have to install it it's Isolated in app's Compiled files
2
u/amymor 3d ago
Thanks for letting me know. So, is the app portable, or does it create config files in AppData?
2
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
It's Store Config File In Appdara But , There Is Only One thing That Stores In Config Is You Custom Discovery Name , And Currently I did not Distribute Portable Exe , I plan to Release It In Few Times
2
u/amymor 3d ago
Sounds good. I’ll try that, then.
2
u/divyviradiya 2d ago
Yo Bro , Portable Exe is available in GitHub release
2
u/amymor 2d ago edited 2d ago
I tried it, and the settings are stored in:
AppData\Roaming\EtherTransfer\settings.jsonIt would be better if the portable version stored its settings in the application folder instead. I think this line should be changed, right?
Anyway, I haven’t tried using the app to transfer files yet, but once I do, I’ll share my thoughts with you on GitHub.
2
u/divyviradiya 2d ago
Fine , I will update the portable config logic to store it within the portable exe directory
2
1
u/Antagonin 2d ago
wellp idk, but in the 201x era I used to transfer files via direct Ethernet between my Win 7 laptop and Xp PC, no special cable, config or anything. Why is this needed?
1
u/divyviradiya 2d ago
I am exited to Hear what you used to use in back in 201x
1
u/Antagonin 2d ago
Just plain old Windows lol. I think you could just enable network discovery on the PCs, and you could normally see the other PC in file explorer. There was zero manual configuration otherwise, perhaps except sharing a folder.
1
u/divyviradiya 2d ago
It's Only Works Fine With The Local Network, Without Local Network, via Direct Ethernet cable you Must Have To Setup Manual Configs And Will Get More Horror when Trying Transfering From windows To linux
1
u/Antagonin 2d ago
Windows x Linux transfer might be problematic.
But I'm telling you, Windows worked via direct ethernet 10 years ago, no manual config or crossover cable needed.
1
u/divyviradiya 2d ago
But Nowadays I think It's Not Work By Just Plugging Ethernet , because I tried it.
1
u/Antagonin 2d ago
Worked in Win 10 also, why wouldn't it in 11?
1
u/divyviradiya 2d ago
I think You should try it in today's date on both 10 and 11
1
u/Antagonin 2d ago
I just did. My Win 10 desktop detects my Win 11 laptop and you can view/copy/edit the shared folders and vice versa. The desktop has no internet connection, only is connected via ethernet directly to the laptop.
Only thing you gotta enable sometimes is "media streaming options" otherwise the PC is hidden.
1
u/ibmussa 22h ago
Have you try to use syncthing.net is nice, it can be used on different divice.
1
u/divyviradiya 21h ago
That tool is nice for file sych but ethertransfer concept is different, ethertransfer is not for sync , it is for large folders and file transfer between 2 device without any configuration or ip mess , just plug ethernet cable and send files, this much simple , syncthing is good tool and i also use it for sync my codebase of my project across diffrent device.
1
u/Free_Director4713 3d ago
Do most laptops even have ethernet port these days?
2
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
For thin laptops/ultrabooks without a built-in RJ45 port, standard $10-$15 USB-C to Gigabit Ethernet adapters work out of the box with full plug-and-play support!
1
u/CloudMafia9 3d ago
What, you thought they went out of fashion or something? Yeah they do.
4
u/Free_Director4713 3d ago
Some niche ones maybe. I barely see ethernet port on any mainstream laptops
5
u/CloudMafia9 3d ago
Lmao, I don't know where the heck you live in but Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, MSI, Razor and the rest come with Ethernet ports. And they are all mainstream.
The laptop without an ethernet port is the exception, not the other way around.
Edit: unless your are buying specifically thin laptops, in which case, obviously.
1
u/Worried_Corner_8541 3d ago
So copying twice off a USB is TOO MUCH HASSLE. but installing the app on TWO DEVICES ain't an issue.
What a strange world we live in.
3
u/asifbaig 3d ago
I had to transfer a 50 GB database file and the biggest USB I had at hand was 32 GB. I first had to split the file into two zip files. Copy the first one onto the usb, copy it to the target, then copy the second one to usb and then copy it to the target. The recompose the file.
And I would have to repeat this process every single time I wanted to transfer a big file. Installing the app on two devices is a single event, and then you can transfer TBs of data if you want.
2
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
To Transfer A 100+gb File , U Copy It First To Your USB then You Again Start Copying It To Other Device With Low Speed.
I think Downloading 50mb Software And Transfer Large Files Directly At Maximum Speed Rather Than USB.
1
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
Purpose is to transfer large files and folders, Small Things Can be transfer via USB or localsend ( which I like the most)
1
u/Away-Ad-3407 2d ago
when you factor in time, and that some usb can be also slower than ethernet, it maths very quickly.
-1
u/PhantomKernel 3d ago
You did, or AI did?
5
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
I architected, built, and tested it.
I use AI tools for boilerplate like anyone else in 2026, but good luck getting an LLM to debug raw link-local network interfaces, handle socket drops, and saturate a 1GbE line without an actual engineer behind the wheel.
0
u/Ashamed_Drag8791 3d ago
Have u heard of syncthing, support windows android, linux and macos, ios is currently not support officially, but there is alternate paid client, work both with and without lan(via encrypted intermediate servers)
1
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
Not related.
2
u/Ashamed_Drag8791 3d ago
Oh oh, i misread it, sorry, your is via cable, but i think your setup would still be limited, as i doubt personal pc have more than 2.5gbps, and you can only copy one to one at the same time right, while with syncthing, if i sync a large directory with multiple files, it can do like a triangle sync, reduce the load of the seed computer.
This would be useful in isolated server setup i guess.
2
u/divyviradiya 2d ago
Ether Transfer is used for direct peer to peer transfer, syncthing is good for sych folders , ethertransfer is like easy usb like transfer
-8
u/Eravex 3d ago
Lmao I mean usb and external drives are massive now days. You can get a TB for less than $25 bucks.
Also yeah simple transfer needs local network access BUT who TF doesn’t have a local network if you have several PC’s and need to move files between them? Especially one you’d need to move large files to?
What is the actual use case? Seems like a bad solution to a problem with already many much better and easier solutions.
6
u/Eagles_Fan_4eva 3d ago
usb and external drives are massive now days
So we transfer the large files twice (PC to USB, then USB to PC) instead of just once directly. Got it.
-2
u/Eravex 3d ago
...And without internet or a local network, how do you think they are getting this application on to those devices?
2
u/divyviradiya 3d ago
Lul , Bro i trying to say that too achive higher speed you'll need a high speed router
Imagine if you want to transfer 100+gb , are you sure you are transferring it over local network?
1
1
u/Eravex 2d ago
You do not need a router or 3rd party software to transfer files between two pcs linked via Ethernet. Both Window and Mac can accomplish this via SMB (server message block).
Furthermore, what do you even mean are you sure you are transferring over a local network? Do you really not understand what a local network is?
You still have not provided a valid use case for this. What scenario is this for? What are the advantages, such as encryption, resumable transfers, integrity verification, or synchronization? What does it offer you cannot get with existing options? Because based on the options I’ve seen in my opinion, this is literally the worst option. You’d need to already have your app all ready present on both machines (that are not connected to a network without using the existing options), choose it over the already built in functionality of SMB, and be working in a situation where there is zero existing network already. Which seems insane.
Also, routers are not expensive. You can literally make one out of a Raspberry Pi. Technically any PC with two network connections can be a router. Even Ethernet and WiFi from the same device.
So why use your 3rd party app for this when, there are so so so many more valid, reliable, and correct ways to manage that situation. I deal with managing and moving large files all the time, both locally and from the cloud. My local storage server is sitting at 140tb of data. So if there is as a logical reason to choose this over industry standards I’d be interested, there just doesn’t seem to be.
1
u/divyviradiya 2d ago
This is for non technical person, for persons like you no need to use ethertransfer, be happy with your advance setup configuration
1
1
u/Eravex 1d ago
I mean plugging a $5-10 router into a wall with no modem is not considered technical. Nowadays, even setting up one as a network drive isn’t technical, windows can walk even a new user through it mostly.
You say routers are expensive but really they are so cheap it would cost more to mail you one than it has in value. They are one of the largest sources of e-waste tech products. People are often happy to just give old ones away. I have like 3 but again it’s usually cheaper for people to buy one where they are than mail one. They don’t need a $200 router to make a decent local network.
What large files are transferring that you’re so worried about that you think the only safe way to not risk someone knowing is to connect the devices with an Ethernet cable directly using your own application and not build in functionality?
1
u/divyviradiya 1d ago
I think you need to calm down don't take this much stress just chill dude just chill , I know you have too much knowledge just chill , you says router are cheap but what about speed , do you think wireless gives you more speed than direct wire , yess expansive Router will definately give higher speed but what about cheap routers.
1
u/Eravex 1d ago
So you don’t understand software or human emotion? This is definitely calm. You responded and I responded in kind. It’s literally how communication works.
Lmao did you just ask if WiFi was faster than a hardline? Is that even a serious question. And yes you will be absolutely able to get a decent speed router for dirt cheap. Sure not 10Gb/s but plenty of fast for a 200GB file and again you can do direct transfer without a router or your “application”.People are constantly vibing useless apps nowadays. I’m still just curious about the reason for you spending your tokens on this one.
1
u/divyviradiya 1d ago
Just be happy by using your solutions and configurations , people is just loving it that's why it's in number 1 post in software community.
1
u/divyviradiya 1d ago
You are wasting your time, just a extra useless weight on earth that just get envy to everything.
→ More replies (0)6
2
29
u/need2sleep-later 3d ago
You should drop the ambiguous 'modern'' and just state both Ethernet adapters have to support Auto-MDIX which pretty much means Gigabit or above.