Is Xcopy faster than copy-paste w many small files

[vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com]

I copy like 2gb of very many small files (POrtableApps)
once a year and it can take several hours.
Would XCOpy be faster. (XP. Does something like RichCopy work on XP?)




- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]

[frank.w...@gmail.com]

From vjp2.at:

>I copy like 2gb of very many small files (POrtableApps)
>once a year and it can take several hours.

In similar cases I've found it is faster to compress and
archive (ZIP) the files, transfer the single archive,
then extract and decompress (UNZIP) on the destination
media.

If you do this, please report to this thread whether it
was faster. I've done this only between Android and
Linux.

Frank

[Todd Vargo]

Even with the command window's scrolling, Xcopy is faster than using
Explorer for copying because explorer wastes time displaying animated
icons and semi accurate progress meters.

FWIW, in my experience, unzipping files has always been faster than
strait up copying. This is because the compression key is in memory and
there is less data to read from the drive because it is compressed. The
slowest part of the process is always the read/write process.

--
Todd Vargo
(Post questions to group only. Remove "z" to email personal messages)

[vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com]

*+-In similar cases I've found it is faster to compress and
*+-archive (ZIP) the files, transfer the single archive,
*+-then extract and decompress (UNZIP) on the destination
*+-media.

I have actually done this and it is faster. I was hoping
xcopy would save me the step and also sometimes I don't ahve
the space on the USB.

One idea would be to zip on the hard drive and unzip from the hard drive
to the USB. Wonder how that would work

[Todd Vargo]

On 4/16/2014 8:50 PM, vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> *+-In similar cases I've found it is faster to compress and
> *+-archive (ZIP) the files, transfer the single archive,
> *+-then extract and decompress (UNZIP) on the destination
> *+-media.
>
> I have actually done this and it is faster. I was hoping
> xcopy would save me the step and also sometimes I don't ahve
> the space on the USB.
>
> One idea would be to zip on the hard drive and unzip from the hard drive
> to the USB. Wonder how that would work

For just making a backup to a usb drive, zipping that way adds extra
work and time to the process. Better to just use xcopy.

My previous post assumed the files would later be copied from the usb to
another machine. In this case zipping makes sense. Basically, if files
are being transported to another machine not on a network, then zip
directly to the usb, and unzip from usb directly to the other computer.

[foxidrive]

On 17/04/2014 10:50, vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
> *+-In similar cases I've found it is faster to compress and
> *+-archive (ZIP) the files, transfer the single archive,
> *+-then extract and decompress (UNZIP) on the destination
> *+-media.
>
> I have actually done this and it is faster. I was hoping
> xcopy would save me the step and also sometimes I don't ahve
> the space on the USB.

It seems like you are using a USB flash drive - many of which are very slow to create files.

It might be worth splashing out on a faster USB stick... maybe a USB 3 version. Even at USB 2
speeds I am guessing that it would create files much faster than the older tech spec stuff.

[Zaidy036]

If you do this on a PC and it is repetitive from folder to folder then
the free RoboCopy (speed will depend on options selected) should be
fastest followed by XXCOPY.

[frank.w...@gmail.com]

From frank.westlake:

>From vjp2.at:
> >I copy like 2gb of very many small files
>(POrtableApps)
> >once a year and it can take several hours.

>In similar cases I've found it is faster to compress and
>archive (ZIP) the files, transfer the single archive,
>then extract and decompress (UNZIP) on the destination
>media.

>I've done this only between Android and
>Linux.

In the above two processors were involved, a PC and an
Android: one creates the archive and the other extracts
it. If you have a single processor (i.e. PC copies to
USB stick) then the act of extracting files on the USB
stick will cause additional transfers to and from memory
across the USB port. It is the additional protocol
required for each transfer that makes multiple small
files so much slower than an equivalent size large file.
So if you unzip to a USB stick you are still
transferring the small files individually and the
overall time might not be much different.

If the USB device is only used for backup or transport
then it is more efficient to transfer an archive to it
and leave it as a single file. When the data is used
transfer the archive to a PC and extract it to a working
directory. When the work is finished archive it and
transfer the archive to the USB stick. I generally use
scripts similar to the following, but these were written
on an Android and are untested.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: fromDevice.cmd
Set "device=U:"
Set "archive=work.zip"
Set "workDir=C:\workDir"

copy "%device%\%archive%" "%TEMP%"

MkDir "%workDir%"
ChDir /d "%workDir%"
unzip "%TEMP%\%archive%"
Erase "%TEMP%\%archive%"
Echo Go to work!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: toDevice.cmd
Set "device=U:"
Set "archive=work.zip"
Set "workDir=C:\workDir"

zip "%TEMP%\%archive?" "%workDir?\*
copy "%TEMP%\%archive%" "%device%"
Erase "%TEMP%\%archive%"
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Frank