copy speed

[davidwf]

I use this to sync files from my NAS to an external USB3 drive
One of the files is 1.2Tb and, even with fail safe turned off it only shows around 12meg/second.....if I use windows copy & paste it runs at around 90meg a sec....why so slow???

[xCSxXenon]

Are you using parallel threads in the donation edition?

[davidwf]

Good question..... if you could explain a bit more what that is and how I can check, I will

[xCSxXenon]

https://freefilesync.org/manual.php?topic=performance

[davidwf]

aha...in that case I would suggest that is not enabled.....

[davidwf]

...I can confirm I am also using the free version as I only use it maybe once a month to sync between NAS and external USB drive (as a 3rd backup :) )

[therube]

What version of Windows?

[davidwf]

windows 10 64bit..all fully up to date

[davidwf]

now running the donated version :)
how many parallel files should / can I use ?

[Plerry]

See (again) the explanation in the manual section on Performance.
Based on what is described there, if your prime bottleneck is a single, specific, very large file, you should not expect to see a lot of improvement ...

[davidwf]

OK, thanks.....but why would windows copy and paste of that file be SO much quicker....

[xCSxXenon]

What if you exclude FFS from your antivirus?

[therube]

Had a quick look...

local machine, Win10 (some ancient version)
to
networked (lan, cat5 cable attached) NAS

file: Win81.iso, ~4GB

---

Altap Salamander
select source file
select destination directory
Copy

~70 MB/s

---

Win10
copy source file
paste into destination directory

~10-80 MB/s
(at the very least, a print job [to a networked printer] hit the network as this the copy was proceeding & it seemed to coincide with the drop in speed to ~10 MB/s)

(I see Win10 has a "fancy" graphical copy/paste dialog. I'm impressed, heh, not.)

---

FFS 10.24
source directory on left
destination directory on the right
(the only file in the source was the wanted file)
Update sync type (so only the single file would copy over)

~90 MB/s

---

On the Win10 end, antivirus, no clue. Suppose whatever MS provides.
Other machines are attached to the network & they may have been doing who knows what (if anything at all). The only thing I actually noticed was the said print job running.

---

So for me, across a LAN attached NAS, I'm not seeing any difference.

[dlines]

I have a job that backs up some files from my internal drive to an external USB flash drive. I was noticing that one of my flash drives was really, really slow, so I changed to a different brand that seemed, when backing up some other files to be much faster. Last night I tried to back up some files and the Compare found 37.8 MB of files to back up. When running the Synchronize, it took about 15 hours to finish the Synchronize. I read on here this thread about parallel operations and increased it to 2. The compare took about 20 minutes to run (much slower than when I had only 1 parallel operation) and it found about 173 MB to Synchronize. It has now been running for 3 hours and it has only synchronized 72 MB. Can anyone tell me what is going on or how to fix this issue?

TIA

David

[davidwf]

as I UNDERSTAND it....parallel file processing or whatever it is called only works if you have lots of files to backup as it effectively equates to starting multiple copy & paste sessions at once to utilise the available bandwidth, in my case I have one large (Acronis .tibx) file so that doesnt help :(

[dlines]

I do have many files to back up, but things do seem to slow down drastically with a 256 GB flash drive vs. even a 123 GB drive.

[davidwf]

Now I have the paid version I have tried the performance tabs and it certainly speeds things up apart from the one large Acronis.tibx file that I am copying between NAS and an external drive but never mind, I can live with it as it's only run once a month.
What would be the optimum setting for the number of parallel files??.. I tried 100 (randomly picked) and it seemed OK, now set to 20 and it also seems OK...

FS.PNG (9.86 KiB) Viewed 1224 times

[xCSxXenon]

That settings depends on the locations. If you had a gigabit network speed and each thread was throttled to 100 megabit, then ten threads is the highest that makes sense.

[davidwf]

I do have a gigabit network

[xCSxXenon]

Which, with no context, means nothing... Glad, you got it mostly figured out