Pensavate che copiare i file fosse facile e che Vista è lento?

[hexaae]

Se pensavate che scrivere una decente routine per copiare file fosse una cosa banale andatevi a leggere l'articolo, estremamente tecnico, su come possa invece essere complicato! Garantire un buon livello di prestazioni nella copia in ogni circostanza non è un gioco da ragazzi...

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussino...4/2826167.aspx

PS
Nell'articolo si dice verso la fine che le migliorie introdotte dal Vista SP1 potrebbero addirittura peggiorare le performance in determinate situazioni!


PPS
Per chi non lo sapesse esiste la possibilità di riabilitare la copia bufferizzata sincrona dei file, alla XP per intenderci, andando a impostare una semplice chiave di registro:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\System]
"CopyFileBufferedSynchronousIo"=dword:00000001

[cajenna]

Infatti la copia dei file non è una cosa semplice e dipende da molti fattori,in primis le caratteristiche dei dischi,ad esempio io ho tre hdd e la velocità della copia dei file è molto influenzata da quale disco copio.
Comunque,almeno con la sp1 rc refresh2,le cose sono molto migliorate.
Stesso discorso vale per i pennini usb,ho una adata da 2Gb che non cammina neanche a calci invece una semplicissima picoflash risulta da essere talmente veloce da avere le caratteristiche compatibili con il readyboost.

[sneeze]

non dimentichiamoci poi che in vista ci sono altre cosette in gioco, le shadow copies ad esempio, l'indicizzazione ad esempio, tutte cose che in determinati casi entrano in gioco a complicare ancora di più le cose.

[cajenna]

hexaae,che vantaggi ci sono usando la copia bufferizzata (sorry per la mia ignoranza )?

[hexaae]

Originariamente inviato da cajenna

hexaae,che vantaggi ci sono usando la copia bufferizzata (sorry per la mia ignoranza )?

Teoricamente, per la copia di tanti piccoli file in locale può essere più veloce la copia sincrona bufferizzata...
L'articolo spiega bene anche se è complicato
Cmq puoi sempre provare, tanto per tornare indietro basterà usare dword:00000000. Io l'ho impostato da qualche settimana, anche se non noto differenze a occhio nudo, mah...

Stavo pensando, ironicamente, ma se la MS inserisse un'opzione per impostare la copia esattamente come le vecchie routine usate da XP? Secondo me continuerebbero a lamentarsi e a dire che dai benchmark Vista è più lento!

[puputata]

Io ho trovato la pace dei sensi e del tempo con un programmino FREEWARE che si integra perfettamente (e in maniera leggera) nella shell di WinXP e di Win VISTA. Va alla grande. Consiglio a tutti di provarlo: si installa in un baleno e se non vi piace (dubito) si toglie in un attimo.


Spero di aver fatto cosa utile, il link e' qui.

[hexaae]

Originariamente inviato da puputata

Io ho trovato la pace dei sensi e del tempo con un programmino FREEWARE che si integra perfettamente (e in maniera leggera) nella shell di WinXP e di Win VISTA. Va alla grande. Consiglio a tutti di provarlo: si installa in un baleno e se non vi piace (dubito) si toglie in un attimo.


Spero di aver fatto cosa utile, il link e' qui.

Grazie del link che non conoscevo...
Bisogna vedere però se questi sanno fare meglio dei cervelloni di Microsoft in quanto a routine di copia.
Non siate sempre in malafede pensando che i programmatori assunti da MS non sono capaci. Coi soldi che ha assumono anche gente molto in gamba (e che magari prima era in un'altra azienda acquisita ).
Infatti leggi questa recensione:

During testing, a very interesting thing happened. I proceeded to moving a folder containing three files, out of which one was a little over 4GB in size. Tera Copy placed an error tag on all the files in the folder. However, when moving them one by one the application had absolutely no objection to the job at hand. This happened various times when dropping entire folders in the application window.

But copying and moving files and folders from one location to another is all about speed and this is exactly what Tera Copy promises. To test the application's speed I checked first with what Total Commander had to offer. The result was satisfying: 3'48'' for copying a file of over 4GB from one location to another, on the same hard disk. Next I tested Vista's Windows Explorer which, surprisingly enough, scored better with 3'36''. The last in action was Tera Copy which brought huge disappointment as it came after TC with 3'49''. Now mind that the tests with Windows Explorer and Total Commander leave no trace of Tera Copy on the computer.

The differences between the three evolutions consisted in speed consistency. It is true that Tera Copy reached the most amazing speeds, but it was irregular. TC and Windows Explorer limited themselves to lower but more constant transfer rates.

A second round of tests resulted in the same ranking. I have to mention that the tests were made with absolutely no previous preparation of the hard disks. So I proceeded to a third and fourth round of tests, this time defragmenting the disk after each file copying activity. This time the results turned in Tera Copy's favor.

A folder of 7.71GB was used during the last set of tests and the results were quite different. XP's Windows Explorer took 8'26'' and 8'27'' respectively to complete the transfer while Tera Copy moved a bit faster with 6'28'' and 6'19'' respectively.

On Vista, the difference between the two was not as similar as on XP. Windows Explorer finished the task in 5'49'' the first time and then in 5'43'' (pretty close timings). Tera Copy on the other hand completed the job in 6'08'' the first time and then in 6'11''.

But, no matter how slow Tera Copy is, it will continue the transfer even if some of the files are corrupted in some way and will not leave you waiting for the copy handler to label them as such.

... ...

The Truth

It will not copy the files faster, but it will complete the transfer by skipping any corrupted files. The application integrates perfectly in Explorer's shell and behaves as if it were a part of Windows.

The final conclusions show that Tera Copy is a lot faster than Windows Explorer on XP is, but only with proper defragmentation. On Vista, it moves a tad slower even if defragmentation of the disk has been performed.


Ho anche trovato quest'altro: http://www.ffprojects.net/ffcopy/ tanto per informazione, ma non penso cmq che quelli alla MS siano programmatori più scadenti, anzi...

[puputata]

Originariamente inviato da hexaae

Grazie del link che non conoscevo...
Bisogna vedere però se questi sanno fare meglio dei cervelloni di Microsoft in quanto a routine di copia.
Non siate sempre in malafede pensando che i programmatori assunti da MS non sono capaci. Coi soldi che ha assumono anche gente molto in gamba (e che magari prima era in un'altra azienda acquisita ).
Infatti leggi questa recensione:

During testing, a very interesting thing happened. I proceeded to moving a folder containing three files, out of which one was a little over 4GB in size. Tera Copy placed an error tag on all the files in the folder. However, when moving them one by one the application had absolutely no objection to the job at hand. This happened various times when dropping entire folders in the application window.

But copying and moving files and folders from one location to another is all about speed and this is exactly what Tera Copy promises. To test the application's speed I checked first with what Total Commander had to offer. The result was satisfying: 3'48'' for copying a file of over 4GB from one location to another, on the same hard disk. Next I tested Vista's Windows Explorer which, surprisingly enough, scored better with 3'36''. The last in action was Tera Copy which brought huge disappointment as it came after TC with 3'49''. Now mind that the tests with Windows Explorer and Total Commander leave no trace of Tera Copy on the computer.

The differences between the three evolutions consisted in speed consistency. It is true that Tera Copy reached the most amazing speeds, but it was irregular. TC and Windows Explorer limited themselves to lower but more constant transfer rates.

A second round of tests resulted in the same ranking. I have to mention that the tests were made with absolutely no previous preparation of the hard disks. So I proceeded to a third and fourth round of tests, this time defragmenting the disk after each file copying activity. This time the results turned in Tera Copy's favor.

A folder of 7.71GB was used during the last set of tests and the results were quite different. XP's Windows Explorer took 8'26'' and 8'27'' respectively to complete the transfer while Tera Copy moved a bit faster with 6'28'' and 6'19'' respectively.

On Vista, the difference between the two was not as similar as on XP. Windows Explorer finished the task in 5'49'' the first time and then in 5'43'' (pretty close timings). Tera Copy on the other hand completed the job in 6'08'' the first time and then in 6'11''.

But, no matter how slow Tera Copy is, it will continue the transfer even if some of the files are corrupted in some way and will not leave you waiting for the copy handler to label them as such.

... ...

The Truth

It will not copy the files faster, but it will complete the transfer by skipping any corrupted files. The application integrates perfectly in Explorer's shell and behaves as if it were a part of Windows.

The final conclusions show that Tera Copy is a lot faster than Windows Explorer on XP is, but only with proper defragmentation. On Vista, it moves a tad slower even if defragmentation of the disk has been performed.


Ho anche trovato quest'altro: http://www.ffprojects.net/ffcopy/ tanto per informazione, ma non penso cmq che quelli alla MS siano programmatori più scadenti, anzi...

Guarda io lo uso da un bel po e non ho mai (e dico mai) avuto un problema... Ed e' molto più veloce di M$

[puputata]

Originariamente inviato da hexaae

Grazie del link che non conoscevo...
Bisogna vedere però se questi sanno fare meglio dei cervelloni di Microsoft in quanto a routine di copia.
Non siate sempre in malafede pensando che i programmatori assunti da MS non sono capaci. Coi soldi che ha assumono anche gente molto in gamba (e che magari prima era in un'altra azienda acquisita ).
Infatti leggi questa recensione:

During testing, a very interesting thing happened. I proceeded to moving a folder containing three files, out of which one was a little over 4GB in size. Tera Copy placed an error tag on all the files in the folder. However, when moving them one by one the application had absolutely no objection to the job at hand. This happened various times when dropping entire folders in the application window.

But copying and moving files and folders from one location to another is all about speed and this is exactly what Tera Copy promises. To test the application's speed I checked first with what Total Commander had to offer. The result was satisfying: 3'48'' for copying a file of over 4GB from one location to another, on the same hard disk. Next I tested Vista's Windows Explorer which, surprisingly enough, scored better with 3'36''. The last in action was Tera Copy which brought huge disappointment as it came after TC with 3'49''. Now mind that the tests with Windows Explorer and Total Commander leave no trace of Tera Copy on the computer.

The differences between the three evolutions consisted in speed consistency. It is true that Tera Copy reached the most amazing speeds, but it was irregular. TC and Windows Explorer limited themselves to lower but more constant transfer rates.

A second round of tests resulted in the same ranking. I have to mention that the tests were made with absolutely no previous preparation of the hard disks. So I proceeded to a third and fourth round of tests, this time defragmenting the disk after each file copying activity. This time the results turned in Tera Copy's favor.

A folder of 7.71GB was used during the last set of tests and the results were quite different. XP's Windows Explorer took 8'26'' and 8'27'' respectively to complete the transfer while Tera Copy moved a bit faster with 6'28'' and 6'19'' respectively.

On Vista, the difference between the two was not as similar as on XP. Windows Explorer finished the task in 5'49'' the first time and then in 5'43'' (pretty close timings). Tera Copy on the other hand completed the job in 6'08'' the first time and then in 6'11''.

But, no matter how slow Tera Copy is, it will continue the transfer even if some of the files are corrupted in some way and will not leave you waiting for the copy handler to label them as such.

... ...

The Truth

It will not copy the files faster, but it will complete the transfer by skipping any corrupted files. The application integrates perfectly in Explorer's shell and behaves as if it were a part of Windows.

The final conclusions show that Tera Copy is a lot faster than Windows Explorer on XP is, but only with proper defragmentation. On Vista, it moves a tad slower even if defragmentation of the disk has been performed.


Ho anche trovato quest'altro: http://www.ffprojects.net/ffcopy/ tanto per informazione, ma non penso cmq che quelli alla MS siano programmatori più scadenti, anzi...

Guarda io lo uso da un bel po e non ho mai (e dico mai) avuto un problema... Ed e' molto più veloce di M$