Mark S. wrote: > > especially in the context of USB testing, that you might > want to try some larger files to give a more realistic experience. >
Right. I overlooked that so far! The current tester is strongly focused on "Naming & Pathing". All seems okay on that. Now there is testing structure I'll make a "Performance" version as it will be easy. > Hence also the random thoughts about robocopy, which is supposedly more > robust than standard copy, but actually I don't know if it's more robust > than > the copy function built into PS. > I looked at various discussions on RoboCopy v. Copy-Item. My general impression is RC is faster, especially under seriously bulk conditions, where it has adjustable multi-threading. Its options are also much richer. However, for Polly purposes, I'm really not sure it would make much difference? Let's see how Polly performs with several reasonable sized wiki. TT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/3e75dd19-c4a8-42c0-a508-dabaf7ea013f%40googlegroups.com.
