I have 2 folders on different disks. And was testing parallel operations.
I set
disk 1 to 10 parallel operations
disk 2 to 50 parallel operations
For comparing 50 (starts with 60 - reading disk 1 is very fast) threads are used. This is what you wrote in the help.
But i do not understand why it shows 50 threads while synchronising.
Shouldn't it be 10?
Or how can I persuade FreeFileSync to use 50 parallel operations for comparing and only 10 for copying files for disk 2.
Parallel file operations
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 23 Oct 2020
-
- Posts: 2978
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
> But i do not understand why it shows 50 threads while synchronising.
> Shouldn't it be 10?
Per the FFS Manual page on Performance:
> how can I persuade FreeFileSync to use 50 parallel operations for comparing
> and only 10 for copying files for disk 2.
I don't think you can.
> Shouldn't it be 10?
Per the FFS Manual page on Performance:
So, your 50 parallel threads during synchronizing is in line with the manual page.• When synchronizing a folder pair, FreeFileSync will use the maximum of the number of parallel operations supported by the two folders.
> how can I persuade FreeFileSync to use 50 parallel operations for comparing
> and only 10 for copying files for disk 2.
I don't think you can.
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 23 Oct 2020
But then I do not get it.
Why do I set 2 different values if FFS is using always the highest of the two?
I can only optimize comparison?
But this backfires if the files which I have to synchronise are large. (I assume this because of the shown transfer rate)
In the above example. I could set for disc 1 also only 1 parallel operations or 5. Same result since disc 1 is local and disc 2 is a remote disc which I access via VPN.
Time for comparison (about one million files), parallel operations on disc 2:
1x 39:47 min
3x 16:02 min
5x 8:54 min
10x 5:36 min
20x 3:59 min
30x 3:31 min
40x 3:17 min
50x 3:09 min
So I thought 50x would be fine. But I believe that it is much too high for synchronizing.
Why do I set 2 different values if FFS is using always the highest of the two?
I can only optimize comparison?
But this backfires if the files which I have to synchronise are large. (I assume this because of the shown transfer rate)
In the above example. I could set for disc 1 also only 1 parallel operations or 5. Same result since disc 1 is local and disc 2 is a remote disc which I access via VPN.
Time for comparison (about one million files), parallel operations on disc 2:
1x 39:47 min
3x 16:02 min
5x 8:54 min
10x 5:36 min
20x 3:59 min
30x 3:31 min
40x 3:17 min
50x 3:09 min
So I thought 50x would be fine. But I believe that it is much too high for synchronizing.