I've had Robocopy running for about 24 hours now...it's moving 2.6million images across a network, and is probably less than 10% of the way through. Is there a faster way to do this?
Asked
Active
Viewed 3,378 times
-1
-
1Not enough information in your post to help. How big are the images? (lots of small file access?). How fast is the network. How heavily loaded is the network. Are the disks maxed out? etc etc. – Hennes Oct 16 '12 at 20:45
-
sorry, assumed that wouldn't be relevant. Images are 100k ish, network is gigabit I think, network is under no load, no load on disks – Paul Oct 16 '12 at 20:50
-
12.6 millions files *of any kind* are going to take a while to move, be they 512b .ico files or 2GB Ghost images. That's enough for an answer. – sysadmin1138 Oct 16 '12 at 20:52
-
@sysadmin1138 - I was just writing the same comment. The overhead in switching files during a file copy is high, but that said, 260,000 in 24 hours is certainly on the low side. – Mark Henderson Oct 16 '12 at 20:53
1 Answers
5
Probably. Depending on the version of robocopy you have, there is a multithreaded copy option, /MT:16, where the number is the number of individual threads to run. From experience it works much, much better with UNC-described network locations as mapped drive-letters force serialization that undoes the multithreading.
sysadmin1138
- 133,124
- 18
- 176
- 300
-
-
@IP Exactly like that. If you're doing local-to-local you don't need to bother, but you're not so you'll need UNC for whichever side is the network location. – sysadmin1138 Oct 16 '12 at 20:58