Author Topic: What do *YOU* want to be added to Multi Commander ?  (Read 19498 times)

Sempervivum

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: What do *YOU* want to be added to Multi Commander ?
« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2015, 00:56:09 »
Synchronized browsing when using FTP.

imperial81

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: What do *YOU* want to be added to Multi Commander ?
« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2015, 11:27:10 »
I need standard Windows copy as an option.

MC is great, has much more grace than TC and is more user friendly. But file copy suffers. I have made some tests on my laptop with hdd:
- windows copy of 3GB file: 1:08 (average for three copy operations)
- MC copy of the same file: 1:25 (average for three copy operations)
Result for MC is the best result I could achieve messing with copy config (I have tried 7 different configurations and "Normal,Same disk" with default buffer settings was fastest).
I have also desktop pc with ssd. I did not make exact measurements, but feeling is the same - windows copy is faster.

Mathias (Author)

  • Administrator
  • VIP Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3858
    • View Profile
    • Multi Commander
Re: What do *YOU* want to be added to Multi Commander ?
« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2015, 12:23:51 »
I need standard Windows copy as an option.

MC is great, has much more grace than TC and is more user friendly. But file copy suffers. I have made some tests on my laptop with hdd:
- windows copy of 3GB file: 1:08 (average for three copy operations)
- MC copy of the same file: 1:25 (average for three copy operations)
Result for MC is the best result I could achieve messing with copy config (I have tried 7 different configurations and "Normal,Same disk" with default buffer settings was fastest).
I have also desktop pc with ssd. I did not make exact measurements, but feeling is the same - windows copy is faster.
Just to let everyone know, MC support tweaking of ALL the option that Windows provide for reading/writing data.
But speed depends on a lot of things. And it is very hard to measure correct because windows to a lot of caching and buffering on it own that messes with timing. Eg when cache gets full everything stops until it is flushed and so on.
And sometimes the speed that windows show is a lie, is say it is done when data has just reached the cache of the target. not when the data is actually written.
For modern drives and modern hardware you get fastest speed bypassing cache, and with a r/w chunk size of 1mb. But it depends on hardware.