whefunky.blogg.se

Teracopy vs robocopy vs fastcopy
Teracopy vs robocopy vs fastcopy





teracopy vs robocopy vs fastcopy teracopy vs robocopy vs fastcopy

The first uncompressed file was 51.6 GB in size. Since I wasn't seeing much of a performance boost with FastCopy, I then tested with uncompressed files. FastCopy was only about 7% faster.īoth of the above tests were done on compressed files.

teracopy vs robocopy vs fastcopy

Using the normal Windows copy method, the 11.7 GB file copied across the WAN in 55 minutes. I then tried copying an 11.7 GB file in a different environment, one where file copies seem to take forever over the WAN. FastCopy was about 16% faster than the Windows copy method. Using FastCopy, it copied in 1 hour and 53 minutes. Using the Windows copy method, the 35.8 GB file was successfully copied across the WAN in 2 hours and 15 minutes. I had heard about FastCopy, which claims to be the fastest Windows copy product, so I decided to do comparison tests. The database is about 110 GB in size, but since we use Quest's LiteSpeed product, the full backup is just 35.8 GB in size. Recently I had to setup database mirroring for a largish database, so I needed to copy the full backup to the mirror server. If you've ever had to copy large files on a Windows platform using the Windows copy method (copy/paste in Windows Explorer or copy/xcopy commands), then you know how slow it is.







Teracopy vs robocopy vs fastcopy