I suspect ROBOCOPY still has a place though. http://blogs.technet.com/b/josebda/archive/2011/02/25/file-server-improvements-from-windows-server-2003-to-windows-server-2008-r2-8-items-for-8-years.aspx
I'm intrigued by your comment. I've typically found Explorer to be slow - until it 'gets going' so it probably depends on the circumstances. High latency gigabit networks (DCs hundreds of miles apart) do get you head scratching until you know what's going on and SMB2 and TCP scaling are really important. -- Richard Carde On 9 Apr 2011, at 08:35, David Connors <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Greg Keogh <[email protected]> wrote: > I was trying to xcopy 60GB of important files to a USB hard drive and it kept > dying with INSUFFICIENT MEMORY. This is caused by the path being too long. I > shortened some paths and kept getting further and further, but it would keep > dying further along. By good timing, a friend just dropped in and he said he > uses robocopy for this sort of thing. And sure enough, he’s right, it has no > such path limit. I just forgot that it existed. It has lots of really useful > switches. > > > It has no path limit - but on fast networks it is dog slow. Someone remarked > that to me and I didn't believe them so I went and tested it for myself. Sure > enough, explorer.exe kills robocopy for perf. > > -- > David Connors | [email protected] | www.codify.com > Software Engineer > Codify Pty Ltd > Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 > 363 > V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors > Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact >
