copy of millions of small files

[cassiomc1]

Good afternoon, I have to copy millions of xml files, by the tests I did it got an average of 7 files / sec, how can I improve?

[Plerry]

If the low/low rate is bothering you, simply do your initial copy with e.g. Windows Explorer.

I suppose not all those millions of xml files are modified continuously.
So, when you next time run an FFS sync, only a limited amount of files need to be copied over, and the low/slow rate is less of an issue.

If all those files would change continuously, you might be better off zipping those xml-files into one big file.
(xml files tend to compress quite substantially when zipped), and simply copy over your single zip-file.
A single, large (zip-)file tends to copy over much faster than many small files with whatever tool you might be using.
You can then still use FFS, but will essentially loose the advantage of syncing at (individual) file level.

[Zenju]

If the low/low rate is bothering you, simply do your initial copy with e.g. Windows Explorer.

There is no reason why Explorer should be faster than FreeFileSync. (Except perhaps for fail-safe file copy, which Explorer does not implement.)

[Plerry]

@Zenju: You are almost certainly right.
My experience with really "slow" copying (at 0.5~1 file/second for many really small files, via IPsec VPN over a in itself pretty fast, 50Mb/s Internet connection) is with FFS fail-safe copy. ...
A "plain" copy generally goes much faster there.

[Zenju]

My experience with really "slow" copying (at 0.5~1 file/second for many really small files, via IPsec VPN over a in itself pretty fast, 50Mb/s Internet connection)

That's a scenario dominated by latency. Explorer probably does the same as FreeFileSync currently which is only process one file at a time. I'm planning to allow multiple sync operations in parallel. This may be the most-important feature that FreeFileSync should add.

[cassiomc1]

My experience with really "slow" copying (at 0.5~1 file/second for many really small files, via IPsec VPN over a in itself pretty fast, 50Mb/s Internet connection)

That's a scenario dominated by latency. Explorer probably does the same as FreeFileSync currently which is only process one file at a time. I'm planning to allow multiple sync operations in parallel. This may be the most-important feature that FreeFileSync should add.

thanks to all for the answers, definitely this will be a great new feature, sure to help a lot in backup of many small files: D

[randomUser]

Sync over Boxcryptor Drive is very slow. Just 0.5 to 1 file per second. The Multiple Connections option of FFS is not possible since i'm syncing to a "local" drive.