Hi friends of FFS,
I posted this problem in February but my posting seems to be deleted.
In every cases of deep folder structure, FFS copies much slower than Explorer or TeraCopy do.
Deep folder structure means more than 3 or 4 folder levels.
The Explorer copies new data about 3 times faster than FFS.
That means about 50 - 60 MB/s vs 15 - 20 MB/s.
I use FFS for syncing/backing up the data of my notebooks to several USB devices by USB 3.
I always can reproduce the problem.
I tested it several times with video files larger than 100 MB.
I used several backup devices, different cables, different USB ports. That all doesn't matter.
The thing becomes worser when file names are very long or include unnormal signs like russian or chinese letters. In this cases the difference in speed is higher.
Increasing the threads (possible with donation edition) doesn't help. That speeds up copying only for 1 or 2 minutes. Then speed breaks down again.
Since months I help myselfe by copying big amounts of new files manually.
I hope some else had the same problem and found a solution.
FreeFileSync copies slower than Windows Explorer
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 6 May 2020
-
- Posts: 4056
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
Every other thread I have seen with this issue was due to something else. Either antivirus, some cloud storage program, a syncing program, every time there was something injecting a process into the transfer causing the issues. Process explorer and logging the system is usually the first step that gets people the results they want
https://freefilesync.org/faq.php#crash
https://freefilesync.org/faq.php#crash
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 6 May 2020
@ xCSxXenon: Thank you for the information.
I had no crash or hang so Process Explorer didn't help me. But the idea was good.
I have a second notebook with a clean system espacially for testing and checking new programs and probably dangerous things. There is nothing installed than Win10.
But I have some new information that helped me understanding the issue. As result I found a new sync strategy.
Two other sync tools (AllSync, GoodSync) have the same problem. So it is not a typical FFS problem.
The problem occurs more intense when using USB decices without energy supply. Using devices with their own energy supply decreases the difference in speed.
That may mean Windows Explorer has a higher priority for I/O tasks than the sync tools when energy is rare.
Another user of FFS told me that Windows Explorer may have a better management with high leveled folder structure. So it might be when using TeraCopy instead of explorer. It might be the same when using sync tools.
Additionally Windows Explorer has a better management when using long filenames. A point I have recognized when managing downloaded picture files with endless names.
I tested transferring a big amount of picture files from one USB device to another. Windows Explorer was twice as fast than FFS or AllSync.
Conclusion:
The difference of transfer speed is an inbuild problem which cannot be solved technically but strategycally. I decided to put all new files into a first level folder of my working device. Then I copy the complete folder manually to the backup device. Next I do the first sync. Then I transfer the files of the source device into their destination folders. At last I do the second sync. Because FFS recognizes shifted files the syncing is very fast. By the way, the detection of shifted files is the main reason why I use FFS.
For me the issue is closed.
Maybe my recognitions will help other users with the same problems.
I had no crash or hang so Process Explorer didn't help me. But the idea was good.
I have a second notebook with a clean system espacially for testing and checking new programs and probably dangerous things. There is nothing installed than Win10.
But I have some new information that helped me understanding the issue. As result I found a new sync strategy.
Two other sync tools (AllSync, GoodSync) have the same problem. So it is not a typical FFS problem.
The problem occurs more intense when using USB decices without energy supply. Using devices with their own energy supply decreases the difference in speed.
That may mean Windows Explorer has a higher priority for I/O tasks than the sync tools when energy is rare.
Another user of FFS told me that Windows Explorer may have a better management with high leveled folder structure. So it might be when using TeraCopy instead of explorer. It might be the same when using sync tools.
Additionally Windows Explorer has a better management when using long filenames. A point I have recognized when managing downloaded picture files with endless names.
I tested transferring a big amount of picture files from one USB device to another. Windows Explorer was twice as fast than FFS or AllSync.
Conclusion:
The difference of transfer speed is an inbuild problem which cannot be solved technically but strategycally. I decided to put all new files into a first level folder of my working device. Then I copy the complete folder manually to the backup device. Next I do the first sync. Then I transfer the files of the source device into their destination folders. At last I do the second sync. Because FFS recognizes shifted files the syncing is very fast. By the way, the detection of shifted files is the main reason why I use FFS.
For me the issue is closed.
Maybe my recognitions will help other users with the same problems.
