Page 1 of 1

Comparison

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:11 pm
by seiferflo
Hi,

I'm not sure about the efficiency regarding UltraCopier on Win8 in terms of performance (sorry not using W7 anymore).
Do you think you could try to make a video test or something to give us a rough idea about what king of speed improvement UltraCopier offers compared to Windows and other software if possible.
Copy Test HDD 1 to HDD 2
Copy Test Network 1 to Network 2
Copy Test small files same HDD
Copy Test big files same HDD
Software to test: Windows 7, Windows 8, Ultracopy, ExtremeCopy, FastCopy, Teracopy, CopyHandler (but not updated for a while, you could try the alpha version)...

*Please disable the Antivirus & Firewall as each user do not use the same (including Windows defender in W8)

Thanks in advance.
Flo

Re: Comparison

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:13 pm
by alpha_one_x86
I have do small test here:
http://ultracopier.first-world.info/art ... ndler.html
But in 2013 (this year them), I have planned extensive benchmark on all this conditions (but with variation of Ultracopier's options too).
I need somebody to do test with me, to have other benchmark on other configuration.

Warning: The first target of Ultracopier is data-security, the second is features, only the third is performance. On the performance point, it will be better on low buffer/memory that an part of other software, but I have not used lot of time to improve the performance, and lot of work remain to boost the performance (Mostly benchmark, to know what option is better, the parallel in some case is better, better IO management, ...).

Re: Comparison

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:19 pm
by seiferflo
Hi,
Ok thanks for your reply, very appreciated.

I could probably help you to do some tests. I have one Dell XPS l502x full config for production, one HP dv5-1005em for Unattended windows tests and a "family" PC with 2 HDD Raid 1 and a bigger set of 2 HDD raid 1 also. I have a lot of USB sticks and the 2 laptops and PC are on a simple network. PC is on W7, the HP I can do everything I want and my production laptop is on W8 lite.
However my job is taking me a lot of time, though I am a freelancer so I could use my free time to run some tests for you if you wish.

Re: Comparison

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:35 pm
by alpha_one_x86
Yes I define the test this week end. And you will tell me if seam correct.

Re: Comparison

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:43 pm
by alpha_one_x86
The tests:
  • Windows: Default copy, Ultracopier 0.4, Supercopier 3, Teracopy, Copy handler, ExtremeCopy, FastCopy
    • Small file with subdirectory, hdd to hdd
    • Big file, hdd to hdd
    • Small file with subdirectory, hdd to other hdd
    • Big file with subdirectory, hdd to other hdd
    • Small file with subdirectory, hdd to samba
    • Big file, hdd to samba
    • Small file with subdirectory, samba to hdd
    • Big file with subdirectory, samba to hdd
  • Linux: Default copy, Ultracopier 0.4, Ultracopier 0.4 (wine), Supercopier 3 (wine), Teracopy (wine), Copy handler (wine), ExtremeCopy (wine), FastCopy (wine)
    • Small file with subdirectory, hdd to hdd
    • Big file, hdd to hdd
    • Small file with subdirectory, hdd to other hdd
    • Big file with subdirectory, hdd to other hdd
  • Haiku: Default copy, Ultracopier 0.4
    • Small file with subdirectory, hdd to hdd
    • Big file, hdd to hdd
    • Small file with subdirectory, hdd to other hdd
    • Big file with subdirectory, hdd to other hdd

Re: Comparison

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:37 am
by seiferflo
Hey Alpha,

Sorry for the delay, I've got quite a lot of work recently and I'm going to have to travel a lot in the following days, so I'm not sure I'll be able to conduct the tests. My apologies.

Regarding the tests:
Great for Linux and Windows tests. I would add ExtremeCopy and FastCopy for Windows though (much faster than Teracopy).
I think some tests in the LAN without Samba could also be interesting. Most of users have a simple PC connected to their internet box and laptop with Wifi or 2 PCs.

Re: Comparison

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:51 am
by alpha_one_x86
seiferflo wrote:I think some tests in the LAN without Samba could also be interesting. Most of users have a simple PC connected to their internet box and laptop with Wifi or 2 PCs.
Then it's same as samba (and mostly is samba).