none
robocopy /mt switch confusion RRS feed

  • Question

  • I am trying to figure out why the processing time when I use the MT switch goes up so much, copying time is a lot lower but the processing time seems a lot longer...

    example:

    Using the /mt:128 switch (or any other /mt value) - command was robocopy . \\machinename\c$\temp t*.avi /mt:128
                  Total    Copied   Skipped  Mismatch    FAILED    Extras
       Dirs :         1         0         1         0         0         0
      Files :         3         3         0         0         0         0
      Bytes :   1.025 g   1.025 g         0         0         0         0
      Times :   0:07:44   0:01:37                       0:00:00   0:00:41

      Ended : Fri Oct 16 12:12:57 2009

    Another example using just the /mt:8 option


                 Total    Copied   Skipped  Mismatch    FAILED    Extras
      Dirs :       179         0       179         0         0         0
     Files :         2         2         0         0         0         0
     Bytes :  700.21 m  700.21 m         0         0         0         0
     Times :   0:02:52   0:00:39                       0:00:00   0:00:21

     Ended : Fri Oct 16 12:04:42 2009


    Now without using the /mt switch - full command - robocopy . \\machinename\c$\temp t*.avi

                   Total    Copied   Skipped  Mismatch    FAILED    Extras
        Dirs :         1         0         1         0         0         0
       Files :         3         3         0         0         0         0
       Bytes :   1.025 g   1.025 g         0         0         0         0
       Times :   0:01:42   0:01:42                       0:00:00   0:00:00


       Speed :            10745565 Bytes/sec.
       Speed :             614.866 MegaBytes/min.

       Ended : Fri Oct 16 12:16:41 2009


    The file copy time less than half without the /mt switch but I am confused why the total time to process the files and directories went from 01:42 to 07:44 when I used multithreaded mode. Should I be using a different switch or is this normal behavior?
    Friday, October 16, 2009 4:27 PM