When I set 'Source+target on a different disks' parameter to 32 (as written
in help, the default value for 'CopyBlockSizeOther'), it remains only in current session!
After closing TC and opening it again, I see 1024 in the dialogue and no CopyBlockSizeOther
in .ini file. Other copying-related parameters works well. Moreover,the default value of
CopyBlockSizeOther seems to be an 1/8 of CopyBlockSize? The lowest value which I can
really set is 33k.
BTW, why lower limit is set to 32k? Most often cluster size in the modern opsystems is 4k on NTFS.
And also, why not to let user to choose a treshold between 'normal' and 'big' copy modes?
WBR.
[bug report] CopyBlockSizeOther problem
Moderators: Hacker, petermad, Stefan2, white
Previous topic---
2SB
Hello !
• Please, have a look here :
http://ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=1497&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=copyblock
• I think that this subject has been widely discussed already in other topics too…
Kind regards,
Claude
Clo
Hello !• Please, have a look here :
http://ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=1497&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=copyblock
• I think that this subject has been widely discussed already in other topics too…
Kind regards,Claude
Clo
Last edited by Clo on 2004-04-29, 17:30 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
#31505 Traducteur Français de T•C French translator Aide en Français Tutoriels Français English Tutorials
Hi! Thanks.
I read these topics now, but I'm continue to not understanding slightly
My experience: using _really_ big buffer (CopyHugeBlockSize=20480k)
when copying or moving files between partitions on _same_ hdd greatly
improves performance. When I'm not use 'big file copy' mode, even with same buf size (CopyBlockSize=20480k), the speed is dropped about 2.5
times, from 22000 to 8000 megs per second.
But, when copying between _different_ drives or from/to network
(especially with network and slow devices like Iomega-Zip), _lowering_
buffer size gives perf. improvement.
I'm will be glad if Christian can answer...
WBR.
Please excuse me my english...
I read these topics now, but I'm continue to not understanding slightly
My experience: using _really_ big buffer (CopyHugeBlockSize=20480k)
when copying or moving files between partitions on _same_ hdd greatly
improves performance. When I'm not use 'big file copy' mode, even with same buf size (CopyBlockSize=20480k), the speed is dropped about 2.5
times, from 22000 to 8000 megs per second.
But, when copying between _different_ drives or from/to network
(especially with network and slow devices like Iomega-Zip), _lowering_
buffer size gives perf. improvement.
I'm will be glad if Christian can answer...
WBR.
Please excuse me my english...
My today's little research: best result with CopyBlockSize=10240, no
swap and very smooth operation - no excessive head jumps. Test files is
about 150 mp3's, average size 2.8 Mb. Also, CopyHugeBlockSize=20480
with large files (60-140 megs) produces the same results. Now I'm set
these values on both work and home computers and I'm glad. (Tested on
Celeron-2000, ram 256M, hdd 20 Gb IDE, W2k).
But, currently CopyBlockSizeOther=32 is set through direct ini editing,
because any change on the settings page resets it to 1280
WBR.
swap and very smooth operation - no excessive head jumps. Test files is
about 150 mp3's, average size 2.8 Mb. Also, CopyHugeBlockSize=20480
with large files (60-140 megs) produces the same results. Now I'm set
these values on both work and home computers and I'm glad. (Tested on
Celeron-2000, ram 256M, hdd 20 Gb IDE, W2k).
But, currently CopyBlockSizeOther=32 is set through direct ini editing,
because any change on the settings page resets it to 1280
WBR.