Ok, and now copy again using Explorer. There's something called a "RAM cache". After data has been read once (e.g. when copying from A to B), Windows keeps it in the RAM cache (Task Manager => RAM => In the cache) as long as there is still space there (Windows uses the "free RAM" as cache). If you now access this data again, it will not be read from the source drive, but directly from the RAM cache. Restart your computer and then do the same test again, but now copy the data first with TeraCopy and then with Windows Explorer. And who is faster now?
In the first case (few small files) the files were probably still in the file system cache when you copied them again with Teracopy. Try to reboot and then copy with Teracopy first.
Hi I used Terror copy two backup my second hard drive on my computer onto external hard drive Since then several of my files have changed how do I update them?. The manual doesn't to tell me how to update my files?.
I read that it keeps creation date. Just tested it with a folder and though it does do that for the files. THe new created folders are still having the new copy date. Do you know a solution?
Teracopy was faster, because the file(s) was cached from when you used Explorer in the first copying test. Perhaps teracopy would be faster, anyway. But with caching, that test was flawed. Nothing will make your drives faster than they are. If teracopy shows faster completion times, it is because it is reporting completion while it is still working in the background. If you were to immediately shut down your computer the instant that teracopy claimed that it was done, then you would have had to wait for the copy to really complete, before Windows actually would shut down. Since that is an unlikely event, then for all practical purposes, teracopy is done as far as the user needs to be concerned. Also, teracopy works faster than Explorer for zillions of small files, when using SSDs. It seems as if teracopy locates the sectors containing those files, and kicks off concurrent copying jobs. So it will copy, for example, 20 small files at the same time, because an SSD can handle that efficiently. Mechanical drives would choke, trying to do the same. It will eventually work, but take a lot longer. I suspect that teracopy checks the type of storage devices being used for the copying request, and will function in a way that is best for the type of drive. Explorer, on the other hand, copies one file at a time, no matter what kind of drives you are using. So each small file has to be completely copied before Explorer moves on to the next small file. So the nod definitely goes to teracopy, for just about any copying jobs, as compared to using Explorer. I like to use the command prompt. I find robocopy to be amazing. Although robocopy will not kick off 20 simultaneous copy jobs the way teracopy will, robocopy had a myriad of features for just about any criteria under the sun that you might need. And with robocopy, it is fast and easy to repeat copying jobs, and you can include your request in a bat file. The command prompt is not for everyone. So for GUI users, teracopy looks great (better than Explorer).
This aint a fair comparsion. You are copying the same files twice. The 2nd time you do it, the OS has utilised any caching mechanisms to make the 2nd time faster. You should test this with DIFFERENT data of same size. In the first case your data was CACHED, that's why it was quicker. I am not saying TerraCopy is not faster than explorer, but your test method was wrong.
Ok, and now copy again using Explorer. There's something called a "RAM cache". After data has been read once (e.g. when copying from A to B), Windows keeps it in the RAM cache (Task Manager => RAM => In the cache) as long as there is still space there (Windows uses the "free RAM" as cache). If you now access this data again, it will not be read from the source drive, but directly from the RAM cache.
Restart your computer and then do the same test again, but now copy the data first with TeraCopy and then with Windows Explorer. And who is faster now?
Maybe I try this in the future, but in general I have found that Teracopy works better for me.
In the first case (few small files) the files were probably still in the file system cache when you copied them again with Teracopy.
Try to reboot and then copy with Teracopy first.
Hi I used Terror copy two backup my second hard drive on my computer onto external hard drive Since then several of my files have changed how do I update them?. The manual doesn't to tell me how to update my files?.
Thanks for the video!
nice video bro, thanks for the help 😁
Hot frick this is an awesome program.
I read that it keeps creation date. Just tested it with a folder and though it does do that for the files. THe new created folders are still having the new copy date. Do you know a solution?
Plus it gave tons of errors and did not copy the full source to the destination.
Teracopy was faster, because the file(s) was cached from when you used Explorer in the first copying test.
Perhaps teracopy would be faster, anyway. But with caching, that test was flawed.
Nothing will make your drives faster than they are.
If teracopy shows faster completion times, it is because it is reporting completion while it is still working in the background.
If you were to immediately shut down your computer the instant that teracopy claimed that it was done, then you would have had to wait for the copy to really complete, before Windows actually would shut down. Since that is an unlikely event, then for all practical purposes, teracopy is done as far as the user needs to be concerned.
Also, teracopy works faster than Explorer for zillions of small files, when using SSDs.
It seems as if teracopy locates the sectors containing those files, and kicks off concurrent copying jobs. So it will copy, for example, 20 small files at the same time, because an SSD can handle that efficiently. Mechanical drives would choke, trying to do the same. It will eventually work, but take a lot longer. I suspect that teracopy checks the type of storage devices being used for the copying request, and will function in a way that is best for the type of drive.
Explorer, on the other hand, copies one file at a time, no matter what kind of drives you are using. So each small file has to be completely copied before Explorer moves on to the next small file.
So the nod definitely goes to teracopy, for just about any copying jobs, as compared to using Explorer.
I like to use the command prompt.
I find robocopy to be amazing.
Although robocopy will not kick off 20 simultaneous copy jobs the way teracopy will, robocopy had a myriad of features for just about any criteria under the sun that you might need.
And with robocopy, it is fast and easy to repeat copying jobs, and you can include your request in a bat file.
The command prompt is not for everyone. So for GUI users, teracopy looks great (better than Explorer).
This aint a fair comparsion. You are copying the same files twice. The 2nd time you do it, the OS has utilised any caching mechanisms to make the 2nd time faster. You should test this with DIFFERENT data of same size. In the first case your data was CACHED, that's why it was quicker. I am not saying TerraCopy is not faster than explorer, but your test method was wrong.
Yes, I saw this same comment before. Even copying the same file size won't help if it isn't on the same drive, in a similar location, etc.