Teracopy Multithreaded

[Ronna Bordelon]

Tryultracopier - teracopy alternative you can use in ubuntu, windows and mac! I've been trying to get an answer for my question on how to make this the default app how can i make ultracopier handle cut-copy-paste function in nautilus? But its still pretty useful if you have large number of files and have to copy them to multiple destinations or need to pause in-between copying!

I just wonder if file copying in directory Opus are single threaded or multithreaded. I heard that Windows only have single threaded file copy, but software such as Robocopy has multithreaded file copy. Multithreaded file copying drastically increases speed when copying since it can copy multiple files at the same time using multiple threads

We experimented with that a long time ago and it made no difference at all. File copying is almost always bottlenecked by hardware controller, storage and network speeds (unless antivirus is misbehaving). Doing two copies in parallel doesn't speed things up; in fact, it'll slow things down in a lot of cases. This is true with both large and small files, at least with NTFS. (NTFS won't create two files in parallel; it'll serialise the two requests, at least from my own testing some years ago.)

I became aware of Robocopy because Linus (Linus Media Group) proved that multi-threaded file copy was faster than normal file copying (which is single threaded in Win).

But then again, he was using a 10Gbit link. Might have something to do with it

Doing two copies at once may help with high latency networks but that's the opposite of a typical 10Gbit network. Maybe if there were very fast SSDs at both ends, but even then I'm guessing the difference is small, and it'll make other things slower, as well as massively complicate things, including the UI for the user (something Robocopy doesn't have to worry about as it has no UI and just skips/retries files automatically if there's an error). A small % increase for a scenario that is already blazing fast wouldn't be worth those trade-offs, if that's what we're talking about.

(Measuring copy speed is also a lot more complex than it often seems, due to different things reporting speeds or completion times differently, while something may just be written into a buffer and not yet written to disk or even sent over the network yet, depending on the program doing the copying and how it's being measured. And if lots of small files are being copied, differences often really come down to which metadata different programs/configurations copy for each file, not to details of how the file bodies are copied.)

(It's also possible that "multithreaded copying" doesn't mean two files at once but offloading the read/write processes for each file to separate threads or using overlapped I/O, which is quite a different thing. Opus can do that already, to a degree, and we'll be adding some more options in that area in the future.)

Anyway, you gave me an answer; you HAVE considered it earlier but you concluded that it was no point.

That's what i hoped for anyway, for you guys to consider it

So thank you for a good answer

You can make buttons/hotkeys in Opus which run it on the current folders. But I would experiment with it in a command prompt first to verify it actually is faster for your scenario, as it's unlikely to be.

Multi-threaded file copying doesn't make a lot of sense if you are hitting the max read / write speed of either source or destination with just a single operation. That said, it would make sense to multi-thread in cases where you have operations that are working on different drives altogether or in cases where the source drive can support a read speed much higher than the destination's write speed, like copying files from an SSD to 2 different HDDs.

Multi threaded copying - better to have it and need it now and then, than to need it and don't have it.

Wouldn't it be nice if Linus started using DOpus because of awesome m.threaded copy abilities (among many other awesome features)? In any case, he should get a free copy of DOpus for review. Not many ppl know about this gem

I was an avid Robocopy user about ten years ago when I was in Europe and needed to copy LOTs of small files from directories on a Windows server in USA. The speed gains were basically because of all the overhead for initiating a single file copy would have other ongoing file copies using the bandwitdth so there ALWAYS was a file transfer, even if the target machine was just flushing diskcache. The same happens today with RCLONE when I need to copy many small(ish) files from the cloud to a target machine. Doing those in parallel helps because of all the small overhead of each single transfer. But there is absolutely no gain at all in LOCAL copies unless you have mechanical disks with no internal caching and an OS that is really good at caching/reordering writes to the physical structure of the disk to minimize seeking.

The other thing that made Robocopy great was unlimited retrying and continuing to copy even after one file failed. The last part Opus does really well with "Unattended Copy" which I am using every second day.

Uh, I don't think that is the way it works...

Usually, companies send him stuff to test because it is good publicity to let his 14.000.000 followers know about your product and especially if Linus likes it

Worst you get is a NO.

Best you get is increased sales.....if that is interesting.

However, there is a 100% chance that nothing will happen if one don't try

I shouldn't have to tell you this

I chose a couple different scenarios for comparison. Please note that these examples are for speed tests, only. First, I copied about 30,000 files with a total size of about 33GBs. Here are the results:

According to the respective estimated times to completion, Windows flat-out beats TeraCopy. I will concede that Windows time estimates fluctuate wildly and at any given moment the report may change dramatically. Also, during this test, TeraCopy maintained a more constant transfer rate throughout the operation than did Windows.

Thanks for pointing out those features Richard. If speed is not the factor, those other features are indeed impressive. Should point out, that while you are coping files, you can add more files, and if they are going to that location, they will ne added (cued), otherwise they will be pending after that copy is completed.

When I tried to do some serious copying during restoring operations, I discovered that the integrated Windows 7 copy function was practically useless. I was even more surprised to find, after some research, that it was a widely acknowledged fact among power users and developers.

I believe, by the way, that you absolutely cannot do speed comparisons using the remaining time figures, because of this. And of course, the fact that Windows does not offer to validate the copied files is a glaring omission.

An interesting workaround is to use a file backup tool, such as Free File Sync or Sync Back Free. This, assuming that your task is big enough to warrant firing up either of those, and dealing with software not really meant for the purpose.

I have been using TeraCopy to resolve the Windows Exploder failed somewhere, and I pay to have a computer work harder than me to figure out where. However, lately, Teracopy 2.3 seems to be stopping / freezing without giving a reason on really big copies (basically backing up my data partition to an external drive). But at least I get a variety of hints where it stopped and what it had completed.

Yes, you missed a big feature and the only reason I use Teracopy. FInd 3 big files in different directories on a PC. Copy them concurrently to somewhere else. Time it. Windows will switch between all 3 copies and it will take MUCH longer. Teracopy will queue them and it is much faster.

One of the most common complaints about newer versions of Windows is the slow copying speed, especially when transferring lots of files over the network. If you want to speed up your copying or if you regularly transfer large amounts of data and have to stop the process to perform some other disk-intensive task, this program may be just what you need.

Yes teracopy is faster than default windows file copier but its very buggy and crashes a lot resulting in data loss. I stopped using teracopy and found the best software out there GS RichCopy 360. This software also provides the solution for long path name error and its very simple to use. Its just amazing!

Hi Paul. If you are only comparing speed, then Windows might be okay in copying files. Having ability to add extra files while copying, to the same destination, or cuing files to another destination, then Windows is useless. It can only do one task at a time. BTW, which version of TeraCopy did you test, Mindblower!

I would definitely say YES it is faster than the default but after sometime you will feel that its slowing down or you need more speed, just like me. Thats why I upgraded myself and my toolkit now includes GS Richcopy 360 which has very fast transfer speed. Try it, I bet you will love it!

If the Date field is important when you copy lots of files, you could also try out ZtreeWin. Only the attribute field is changed when doing a copy, and you could also change the Date/Time field as well. Another nice feature being it works with all operating systems. Visit , Mindblower!

What do you think about this? This thought does leave some room for clever programmers to improve such functions although some may require a complete restructuring of the OS, filesystem, media or applications.

Let me know your thoughts.

As we often keep files on these drives, we delete and add more files. New files get copied to fill in the gaps, and all copiers do it the same way. This is where having the ability to verify comes in handy. This can also explain why the copy process takes longer, as the flash drive fills up, the software must look for places to transfer the files, and the copy process slows.

3a8082e126