No Performance settings

[SteveF48]

I have the donation version running under Ubuntu 22.04.
Why can't I see any options to optimise performance? The Comparison Tab in Synchronisation Settings has the Heading "Performance Improvements:", but there are no options to specify Parallel File Operations.

Screenshot from 2023-08-06 11-09-50.png (65.98 KiB) Viewed 3393 times

[therube]

If you have not yet entered any folder pairs, Parallel will be blank like that.

Enter a folder pair & the options should then turn up.

[GameOver]

Irrelevent anyway, it still does one file at a time. Parallel File Operations seems to have to no effect.
It sais "X amount of threads" but is still just transfering 1 file at a time from one location to one location and doesnt move to the next location until that first one is done

Unless im missing something

[Zenju]

Irrelevent anyway, it still does one file at a time.

That's simply not true.

Unless im missing something

Yes. Not all scenarios benefit from multiple threads: https://freefilesync.org/manual.php?topic=performance

For local syncs you may not see a large improvement. Sync'ing over the internet? You *need* multiple threads.

[GameOver]

Irrelevent anyway, it still does one file at a time.

That's simply not true.

Unless im missing something

Yes. Not all scenarios benefit from multiple threads: https://freefilesync.org/manual.php?topic=performance

For local syncs you may not see a large improvement. Sync'ing over the internet? You *need* multiple threads.

It is not untrue, it only transfers 1 file at a time. and for a local sync there is no improvement, if anything it goes slower.

[Zenju]

It is not untrue, it only transfers 1 file at a time

You're talking nonsense. Got any proof?

[xCSxXenon]

It is expected to be slower for local transfers, there is no artificial limitation on transfer speed when you transfer locally

[Zenju]

It is expected to be slower for local transfers, there is no artificial limitation on transfer speed when you transfer locally

It's not expected to be slower(*). In worst case, multiple threads will be just as fast as using a single thread.

*) Unless you're using an ancient spinning disk, in which case multiple threads may introduce additional seek overhead.

[xCSxXenon]

Even with SSDs, you still have some overhead for I/O, it just won't be as noticeable or won't be perceivable by a human. Not including the fact that some lower-end CPUs can also have issues with multithread transfers, albeit not super common.

[GameOver]

It is not untrue, it only transfers 1 file at a time

You're talking nonsense. Got any proof?

The program only doing 1 file at a time?
Showing syncronizing this file, then this file, then this file. ONE AFTER THE OTHER

[xCSxXenon]

Does it says [2 threads] before the path and name of the file it is transferring?
It probably does, or you don't have it set up correctly. FFS will only display a single file's progress at a time even though multiple threads are in progress

[GameOver]

Does it says [2 threads] before the path and name of the file it is transferring?
It probably does, or you don't have it set up correctly. FFS will only display a single file's progress at a time even though multiple threads are in progress

Well thats just daft. :) I'll leave it at that
Have swapped my backup solution to a drivepool which has created another issue but i do notice using the performance monitor on the Drivepool that it is atleast doing a few files at once if selecting 32threads.

[xCSxXenon]

I'll assume it's working then...
It is set up this way because it can't display all current transfers with the limited room. For a few threads, it's fine. But consider five or more threads or, depending on how it is rendered, the different resolutions and pixel densities that are out there