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?
-
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.– HennesOct 16, 2012 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– PaulOct 16, 2012 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, 2012 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 HendersonOct 16, 2012 at 20:53
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
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.
-
-
@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, 2012 at 20:58