This is a two-step process. You must first configure file sharing on the source device and then use Robocopy in the destination device to perform the transfer.
Use the drop-down menu to select the user or group to share files or folders — For example, the Everyone group. For example, you can select Read default if you only want users to view and open files. Note the network path for the folder that other users will need to access the content over the network, and click the Done button.
After you complete the steps, make a note of the folder path and the IP address of your source computer. Once file sharing is configured on the source device, you can copy the files using Robocopy from the destination device. Search for Command Prompt , right-click the top result, and select the Run as administrator option.
Each test was run twice and an average of the times was taken. If you want to jump straight to the results table and a summary of the findings about who performed best and worst, they can be found on page 2.
Copy Handler is a tool that while it sits in your system tray, can take over the file copying operations from Windows or monitor the clipboard for files.
Multiple file copy test 1: seconds ISO copy test 2: seconds Network copy test 3: 98 seconds. Download Copy Handler. There are 2 different version of ExtremeCopy, the standard free one and the full shareware version. Functions such as copy or collision options, window position, failed file recovery and the buffer size are disabled in the free version, but you can still integrate it into Explorer to take over the standard Windows file copy functions.
Pause, skip and verify are also present. A small options window pops out from the copy dialog using the arrow in the top left. For the USB stick a slightly older portable version is also available. Multiple file copy test 1: seconds ISO copy test 2: 86 seconds Network copy test 3: seconds.
Download ExtremeCopy Standard. It also has several options for adding context menu entries and extensive command line options, although something missing is a pause or skip button. Watch out for the weird uninstaller where you have to rerun the setup exe. Multiple file copy test 1: seconds ISO copy test 2: 86 seconds Network copy test 3: 79 seconds. Download FastCopy. FF Copy is relatively simple copying tool where you select or drag and drop multiple selections of files and folders onto the window and they will be copied or moved to the destination you select from the button or drop down.
There are no other options to speak of and this tool probably functions best when you want to quickly send files from multiple locations to several different folders and then let it process them. Multiple file copy test 1: seconds ISO copy test 2: 86 seconds Network copy test 3: Refused to copy the folder, gave an error every time. Download FF Copy. KillCopy can place copy and move entries onto the context menu and can also be setup to be the default copy handler replacing Explorer.
Multiple file copy test 1: seconds ISO copy test 2: 88 seconds Network copy test 3: 78 seconds. Download KillCopy. This copying tool is a little different than the others here because it was written in Java meaning there are different versions for Windows, Linux and Mac OSX, although this does make for a hefty 20MB installer.
Standard pause and skip buttons are available. Multiple file copy test 1: seconds ISO copy test 2: 89 seconds Network copy test 3: seconds. Download Mini Copier. A large window will alert you to any file collisions etc. Multiple file copy test 1: seconds ISO copy test 2: 87 seconds Network copy test 3: seconds. Download Nice Copier. PerigeeCopy has several useful functions built in such as replacing Explorer for default file operations, using or ignoring the recycle bin when deleting files, leaving errors until the end of the copy process and 6 different overwrite options.
The main copy dialog is quite informative but there are no extra features like pause, queue or skip for that extra bit of control. Download PerigeeCopy. Fastcopy is amazing! It is reliable in all circumstances. It gets the theoretical maximum speed from all devices. Fastcopy has a portable version. Ray, Thanks for the wonderful article! I understand you review quite a bit of software, but I would love to see an updated review of this category running Windows But some others have newer versions.
I like the interface of Teracopy and had used that for some years now, but Fastcopy is my go-to now until I find a reason to change. Its GUI is a little boring, but gets the job done nicely. I did some preliminary tests a while back with Windows 7 and 10 for something else, they were almost identical in copy speed. The biggest differences will likely be any major changes to the copy tools themselves.
Why is Killcopy the winner for me? I suggest you to look at the results in the comparisonlist in the article. The result of killcopy is always almost at the top and in any condition. It can move, copy, overwrite,… I can even suggest you to change some settings in Killcopy. Killcopy will increase the speed of the copy to the theoretical maximum speed of the hardware.
We continiously do competitions between engineers during datamigrations. The Killcopy users allways win. New colleagues tries always to convince the older guys. Killcopy can be used as commando based and not only with a gui.
It is even available as portable edition. Good luck everyone. As far as I know. Killcopy works with any existing Windows which I can remember. I think that i have used Killcopy on about different systems in different situations and on all kind of operating systems. As far as i know most programs are struggling with enormous quantities of small files. Like 10 1Kb files and many copy programms also struggles with many large files like multiple 10GB files. Killcopy has currently never failed for me.
Have these been improved significantly? Last time I checked, Windows 10 copy performance was somewhere in between Windows 7 and Windows 8. Good post! It can also pause, skip and verify copied files using CRC32 in addition to dragging and dropping files onto the copy queue….
Do you have a list of free copy programs that can run as a service on a server Windows or ? Does any one these tools has the ability to pause and resume copying after system restarts? We will update this sometime in the future, but to be honest, I doubt there will be much difference in how they perform against each other.
Have you tried timing the transfers manually? The copy dialogs might not be completely accurate with their information. Absolutely yes.
These files are partition images splitted. Has anyone done this before for this problem? I use this tool. This tool is one of the best tools. This tool copies the your files very easily. Please tell me that youre heading to keep this up! This will add parallel compression, a progress indicator and check integrity across the network link:. You can tune the compression level to better fit the ratio of CPU to network bandwith and swap it out with pxz -9e and pxz -d if you have much more CPU than bandwidth.
You only have to verify that the two sums match upon completion. This option is useful for very large amounts of data as well as high latency networks, but not very helpful if the link is unstable and drops.
In those cases, rsync is probably the best choice as it can resume. I would recommend using rsync. If you can connect the 2 machines directly using gigabit ethernet, that will probably be the fastest. And if you interrupt the data flow, you should be able to resume from where you left off. What can you tell us about the source and destination of the data? Is it single drive to single drive? If you have ftp server in src side, you can use ncftpget from ncftp site. It works prefect with small files as it uses tar internally.
You can also try using the BBCP command to do your transfer. Normally, we try real hard to avoid having to move suff around. But sometimes… you just have to move stuff. We also send our zfs dumps over BBCP as well… it maximizes our network utilization and minimizes the transfer times.
I guess my answer is a little late here, but I made good experiences with using mc Midnight Commander on one server to connect via SFTP to the other server. It has a built-in option to do the copying in background, but I prefer using the screen command and detach from the screen while mc is copying I think it runs faster then too.
If you lack the diskspace you can pipe the tar directly over ssh while its being made. The solution would be something that can create multiple connections between both servers and thus put more stress on the bandwidth between the two system.
Faster network cards between those servers, for example. Do you think I will see speed benefits using either xcopy, robocopy, teracopy or fastcopy? The stuff is on a USB 2. Improve this question. Community Bot 1. Ian G Ian G 1 1 gold badge 2 2 silver badges 7 7 bronze badges.
Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. John Gardeniers John Gardeniers 27k 12 12 gold badges 52 52 silver badges bronze badges. Yes, I know the single tar approach will definitely yield results, but wasn't sure if building the single file would take a significant amount of time. Firewire's good but eSATA can be faster too.
Lewis Roberts Lewis Roberts. I don't follow your logic. Then the ISO is read to extract the files and finally write them to the destination.
How is that more efficient than reading and writing them once? JohnGardeniers Lewis is betting that the time it takes to copy small files across the network have a much greater overhead than the time it takes to put them into an ISO and then transfer that file.
It really depends on your particular environment, but as unintuitive as it sounds, it can be faster to transfer one consolidated instead of thousands of tiny files. Rsync can be your friend here too as it can in many other file transfer scenarios.
0コメント