Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am doing a rather large transfer (8TB) from inside our network to another network share. Most of the files are ranging anywhere to .1 MB to 15 MB. The machine that I need to do the copying on is Windows Server 2003.

I am familiar with robocopy and specifically the /mt option to increase the amount of threads to deal with the rather small file sizes and large amount of files that will need to be copied. I have downloaded the Windows Server 2003 Resource Kit Tools. Which includes robocopy but it seems like the version included does not offer the option for /mt, dramatically slowing down the transfer.

Is there a way to get the robocopy with the /mt option working on server 2003?

share|improve this question
You could try copying the binary over from a Win7/2008R2 machine, but if that doesn't work you're probably out of luck. – Ryan Ries Feb 2 '13 at 16:28
@ryanries Yea unfortunately I tried that, it does not work. – Halfwarr Feb 2 '13 at 16:34
What was the error on the Win2k3 box when running the Win2k8R2 version? Are you running Win2k3 x86 or x64? – Simon Catlin Feb 2 '13 at 19:13
@SimonCatlin Roboocopy is not a valid win32 application. The file came from windows 7 x 86 and the server is x86 as well. – Halfwarr Feb 2 '13 at 21:12
Are you only making one invocation of robocopy from the root of the sahre? Try making a unique invocation of robocopy for each dir at the root of the share. Use "start" in batch or "start-job" in powershell. – Craig620 Feb 7 '13 at 14:37

From TechNet: "The /MT parameter applies to Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7."

So it doesn't look like the /MT option is supported on W2K3.

share|improve this answer

Try RichCopy. It does multithreaded copies, and also comes from Microsoft as a portable tool.

share|improve this answer
up vote 1 down vote accepted

I wound up just spawning 8 different instances of the application. Wrote a simple script that spawned the next instance once was finished. So I always had 8 instances running at once (until it got towards the end).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.