On the other ones, I was getting around 4.75 MB per second.įastCopy provides a command-line interface as well, so it can be used in batch files and scheduled jobs, such as those that refresh your development/test databases with production data.
By the way, I was getting about 1.85 MB per second for the transfer rate on this system, so that's why these times are so bad. That file took 2 hours and 32 minutes using Windows copy method and 2 hours and 23 minutes using FastCopy. The second uncompressed file was 15.6 GB in size. That file took 4 hours and 3 minutes using Windows copy method and 3 hours and 16 minutes using FastCopy. The first uncompressed file was 51.6 GB in size. Since I wasn't seeing much of a performance boost with FastCopy, I then tested with uncompressed files. FastCopy was only about 7% faster.īoth of the above tests were done on compressed files. Using the normal Windows copy method, the 11.7 GB file copied across the WAN in 55 minutes. I then tried copying an 11.7 GB file in a different environment, one where file copies seem to take forever over the WAN. FastCopy was about 16% faster than the Windows copy method. Using FastCopy, it copied in 1 hour and 53 minutes.
Using the Windows copy method, the 35.8 GB file was successfully copied across the WAN in 2 hours and 15 minutes. I had heard about FastCopy, which claims to be the fastest Windows copy product, so I decided to do comparison tests. The database is about 110 GB in size, but since we use Quest's LiteSpeed product, the full backup is just 35.8 GB in size. Recently I had to setup database mirroring for a largish database, so I needed to copy the full backup to the mirror server. If you've ever had to copy large files on a Windows platform using the Windows copy method (copy/paste in Windows Explorer or copy/xcopy commands), then you know how slow it is.
0 kommentar(er)
