On the other hand, XCopy achieves better results in 8 out of 18 tests including: Disk Read Transfer, Disk Average Request Size, Disk Average Read Request Size, Disk Average Request Time, Disk Average Read Request Time, Process Memory Used, Process Data Rate and Process Data IOPS.
Performance CounterĪccording to the performance results, Robocopy achieves better results in 10 out of 18 tests including: Disk Transfer Rate, Disk Write Transfer, Disk Transfer IOPS, Disk Read IOPS, Disk Write IOPS, Disk Average Write Request Size, Disk Average Write Request Time, CPU Usage, CPU Usage System and Process CPU Usage. The file copy operations were performed between two identical Crucial MX300 1TB SSD drives using the same data set containing 30,000 small and medium-sized files. The performance test was performed on a quad-core machine with 16 GB of system memory running the Windows Server 2012 operating system. The purpose of this review is to compare the performance of file copy operations using the Windows built-in command line file copy utilities Robocopy and XCopy. I am happy to hear that and also for answering the original question which you ask about the best alternative to robocopy you have peersync and gsrichcop圓60 ,it has got all the features of RoboCopy, but it has some more features like copying open/locked files, can copy the timestamps, and has a GUI interface with a nice looking log.
0 kommentar(er)
