0

I was copying the windows "users" folder for a friend of mine and I noticed that the 6.5GB file took unusually long to copy. The transfer rate never exceeded 5Mb/s. Also, I noticed there was an unusually large amount of folders: 30,000-40,000. Does a high number of files, folders and subfolders have a bad effect on transfer speed?

The transfer mentioned was done between an SSD and a USB 3.0 flash drive.

  • USB 2.0 or USB 3.0? It is normally for a user's profile directory to contain a good amount of files. – Ramhound Aug 25 '15 at 22:25
2

When you copy data, the ideal case is having one sequential file. Instead, having a myriad of small files kills performance. A mechanical disk has to keep seeking for the right sector, and this is very time-consuming; an SSD is much faster, but still it suffers. If you check an SSD benchmark (I recommend Anandtech) you'll see that sequential read is often around 500 MB/s (assuming a SATA 3 connection, which is the most common), whereas reading chunks of 4KB is much slower, less than 100 MB/s.

Moreover, you are copying from an SSD to a USB drive. The latter is probably your bottleneck: consider that a USB 3.0 interface doesn't guarantee that the device will operate at that speed, but rather that it could transfer data up to that speed. Many cheap USB drives have a low quality memory and/or controller, and they are slow, so slow that USB 3.0 is actually useless as they couldn't even saturate USB 2.0.

In your case you are probably seeing a combination of the 2 things, the many files and the slow USB drive. The result is that the operation takes longer than other file copies.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.