Copying 2 things at once is 5 times slower!

[GeV]

Some might guess that when you copy 2 things to another hard drive or partition it would take about
twice as long as one thing if they were the same size. But it seems to take much, much longer than
twice the time. I was wondering what I can do to short this up. I move data around a lot and doing
it one at a time (for better transfer rates) is tedious. Would a Raid 0 setup help things much?

 

[Malke]

Some might guess that when you copy 2 things to another hard drive or
partition it would take about
twice as long as one thing if they were the same size. But it seems to
take much, much longer than
twice the time. I was wondering what I can do to short this up. I move
data around a lot and doing
it one at a time (for better transfer rates) is tedious. Would a Raid 0
setup help things much?

RAID 0 is a recipe for losing all your data because when one drive dies you
lose everything. The speed gain is negligible.

You should not be having such issues about copying two files unless each
file is huge and you have a very old, slow processor. You left out that
information. Some things that can cause slow copying:

1. Not enough RAM. You want at least 512MB for XP.

2. A too-full and/or badly fragmented hard drive.
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Maintenance

3. A marginal hard drive.
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Hardware_Tshoot

Since you told us nothing about your computer, that's as specific as I can
get.

Malke

 

[smlunatick]

Some might guess that when you copy 2 things to another hard drive or partition it would take about
twice as long as one thing if they were the same size.  But it seems totake much, much longer than
twice the time.  I was wondering what I can do to short this up.  I move data around a lot and doing
it one at a time (for better transfer rates) is tedious.  Would a Raid 0 setup help things much?

When using IDE had drives connected on the same cable in a master/
slave setup, this slow-down will always exist! IDE channels are only
able to do ONE access method at a time. This is to say when a "read"
is requested, all "writes" are stopped and vise versa. Most "power"
users set up hard drives one per IDE cable, since each channel are
separate.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:07:01 AM, and on a
whim, GeV pounded out on the keyboard:

Actually Raid 0 just about doubles speeds in many areas. Hence its widespread use in some high
performance systems. I'm not sure if it would me in this situation of course. But it sure is valued
by many users.


Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8ghz.


4 gb 800mhz.


I think this might be it. It was about 95% full (the destination drive). I'll have to test some file
transfers going to a half empty drive and one that is almost full.

I wonder if the source drive's fill size makes much difference or if its only the destination drive
that matters?

Hi GeV,

Are your partitions on a single hard drive or on two separate drives? I
have 3 hard drives in my system, and depending on where it's being
copied has a lot to do with it. Single hard drive (partition to
partition), two drives on the same channel (drive to drive), etc.


Terry R.

 

[GeV]

Some might guess that when you copy 2 things to another hard drive or

RAID 0 is a recipe for losing all your data because when one drive dies you
lose everything. The speed gain is negligible.

Actually Raid 0 just about doubles speeds in many areas. Hence its widespread use in some high
performance systems. I'm not sure if it would me in this situation of course. But it sure is valued
by many users.

You should not be having such issues about copying two files unless each
file is huge and you have a very old, slow processor.

Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8ghz.

1. Not enough RAM. You want at least 512MB for XP.

4 gb 800mhz.

2. A too-full and/or badly fragmented hard drive.
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Maintenance

I think this might be it. It was about 95% full (the destination drive). I'll have to test some file
transfers going to a half empty drive and one that is almost full.

I wonder if the source drive's fill size makes much difference or if its only the destination drive
that matters?

 

[GeV]

Some might guess that when you copy 2 things to another hard drive or partition it would take

about
twice as long as one thing if they were the same size. But it seems to take much, much longer than
twice the time. I was wondering what I can do to short this up. I move data around a lot and doing
it one at a time (for better transfer rates) is tedious. Would a Raid 0 setup help things much?

When using IDE had drives connected on the same cable in a master/
slave setup, this slow-down will always exist! IDE channels are only
able to do ONE access method at a time. This is to say when a "read"
is requested, all "writes" are stopped and vise versa. Most "power"
users set up hard drives one per IDE cable, since each channel are
separate.

I'm just using Sata. But that is a good thing to note if IDE drives are ever used in the future.
Thanks.

 

[GeV]

Some might guess that when you copy 2 things to another hard drive or

Are your partitions on a single hard drive or on two separate drives? I have 3 hard drives in my
system, and depending on where it's being copied has a lot to do with it. Single hard drive
(partition to partition), two drives on the same channel (drive to drive), etc.

I've never noticed a difference but there could be differences. I'll keep an eye on that too. Good
point.
In my system I'm copying from hard drive to hard drive. Sata 7200rpm ones. Is it faster going from
hard drive to hard drive or partition to partition on the same drive I wonder? Its so nice to not
have to bother with all that Master/Slave IDE nonsense anymore!

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:34:35 PM, and on a
whim, GeV pounded out on the keyboard:

I've never noticed a difference but there could be differences. I'll keep an eye on that too. Good
point.
In my system I'm copying from hard drive to hard drive. Sata 7200rpm ones. Is it faster going from
hard drive to hard drive or partition to partition on the same drive I wonder? Its so nice to not
have to bother with all that Master/Slave IDE nonsense anymore!

It would be faster copying from one HD to another, rather than one
partition to another on the same HD.

It was made a lot easier when CS came out (cable select).


Terry R.

 

[Bob I]

The date and time was Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:34:35 PM, and on a
whim, GeV pounded out on the keyboard:


It would be faster copying from one HD to another, rather than one
partition to another on the same HD.

It was made a lot easier when CS came out (cable select).


Terry R.

What people seem to be overlooking is the fact that "copying 2 things at
once" causes the HD to seek back and forth between the four file
locations. Of course it's going to be slower, LOTS SLOWER.

 

[Bob I]

So is there anything I can do to help facilitate copying without doing it one at a time? Would Raid
0 help this at all?

If you want fast, copy sequentially, and from the command line using
XCOPY or XXCOPY. The system will fill memory reading and then write to
the target. The GUI is slower, and using two copy instructions from
there just makes the system beat itself trying to death to share the
same resource. Remember the Harddrive hardware is the slowest link in
the chain, so letting it pick up and lay down data without chasing all
over the drive is the fastest way.

 

[GeV]

Some might guess that when you copy 2 things to another hard drive or

What people seem to be overlooking is the fact that "copying 2 things at once" causes the HD to
seek back and forth between the four file locations. Of course it's going to be slower, LOTS
SLOWER.

So is there anything I can do to help facilitate copying without doing it one at a time? Would Raid
0 help this at all?

 

[GeV]

What people seem to be overlooking is the fact that "copying 2 things at once" causes the HD to

So is there anything I can do to help facilitate copying without doing it one at a time? Would
Raid
0 help this at all? ----
So which is it? Are you copying from one drive to another or from one partition to another?

I answered this previously I think. Its from 1 hard drive to another.
I just tested it: Moving a 30mb folder from 1 hard drive to another took about 3 seconds. Partition
to partition took about 10 seconds! That was surprising. Didn't think the difference would have
been so great.

I cant test from one partition to another because I don't have any partitioned drives but when I
copy 500mb files from one drive to another it takes exactly twice as long to copy two files at a
time as it does to copy one file (7 sec. for one file and 14 sec.

for two). When I say "two at a time" I mean I select two files, select Copy, then go the the other
drive and select
Paste.

I wish I could say the same. Often when I'm copying the first thing it says I have 5 minutes left.
Then when I copy something else that 5 minute figure suddenly becomes 20 or minutes or more. The
difference is huge. In this instance I'm copying both files from the same source and to the same
destination. I'm not sure how it would be if the destinations were different and the sources were
the same or if the sources were different and the destinations were the same. Most of us use the
same sources and destinations most of the time I think.

 

[GeV]

Some might guess that when you copy 2 things to another hard drive or

If you want fast, copy sequentially, and from the command line using XCOPY or XXCOPY. The system
will fill memory reading and then write to the target. The GUI is slower, and using two copy
instructions from there just makes the system beat itself trying to death to share the same
resource. Remember the Harddrive hardware is the slowest link in the chain, so letting it pick up
and lay down data without chasing all over the drive is the fastest way.

Sounds like a solution. Thanks.

 

[Bob I]

I answered this previously I think. Its from 1 hard drive to another.
I just tested it: Moving a 30mb folder from 1 hard drive to another took about 3 seconds. Partition
to partition took about 10 seconds! That was surprising. Didn't think the difference would have
been so great.

That's because the heads have to keep seeking back and forth between the
source and target locating.

for two). When I say "two at a time" I mean I select two files, select Copy, then go the the other
drive and select
Paste.

I wish I could say the same. Often when I'm copying the first thing it says I have 5 minutes left.
Then when I copy something else that 5 minute figure suddenly becomes 20 or minutes or more. The
difference is huge. In this instance I'm copying both files from the same source and to the same
destination. I'm not sure how it would be if the destinations were different and the sources were
the same or if the sources were different and the destinations were the same. Most of us use the
same sources and destinations most of the time I think.

This is caused by you creating a new task that requires the same
resources, and the computer and hard drive have to keep switching tasks
and that incurs even more head seek time. Once you know how the hardware
and computer work it's easy to understand why it is that way.

Let's say you are going to help your sister move to another apartment.
You figure it will take 2 hours and so you take one of the 5 boxes from
her old apartment to her new apartment. Now your brother calls and
wants you to help him do the same thing. So now you go to his old
apartment and grab one of the 5 boxes he wants help with and take that
to his new apartment. Then you go to you sisters old apartment to get
box number 2, how much time is going pass before you have finished
moving you sister now since every other trip is interrupted by a trip to
your brothers apartments? Certainly not 2 or even 4 hours anymore!