Robust Transfer: Timings

[WimdeLange]

Because I was curious , I did sometimings. I used a directory on my laptop which is 109Mb big, existing of 129 folders and 1793 files.

Robust transfer, first time: 1:10. But the first time doesn't count.

The copy is done to an empty directory (directory is removed after the copy process)
Robust transfer, second time: 0:28
CopyPaste: 0:29

Copying is without removing the directory, so all files are already exisiting.
Robust transfer: 3:00
CopyPaste: 3:05.

Conclusion, there is no speed difference in using RobustTransfer or not.

[nikos]

no speed gain was advertised, no?
but it gives you more options and handles errors much more "robustly"

[WimdeLange]

no speed gain was advertised, no?
but it gives you more options and handles errors much more "robustly"

Yes, I know and it was mentioned before by you that there was no speed gain, but I had the impression that it was faster, so I had to test it. And my impression was wrong .

Indeed more options. Errors I didn't have, maybe I had to copy something to my memorystick and remove it while copying .

There is still a feature missing... Better timing But that you heard from me before. Not so important, but sometimes, if it takes very long it is easier to make a guess how long ..... arggh, I do it again, talking the obviously.......

[nikos]

to be honest, i've never seen any copy errors since back in the 80's
but people transferring across networks etc obviously must be seeing the odd error -- or else they wouldn't have been bugging me about it

as a further advertisement opportunity, let me note that the new robo-copier employs true multi-threading so you can continue working uninterrupted. If you want it totally discreet you can choose the background priority so you will hardly notice that copying is going on, and you can carry on your other business with the pc

however you are still not adviced to launch multiple copies at once, especially if they are accessing the same physical disk