We could provide options to let you tweak how often the progress dialog updates (in case I was too conservative in how much the updates are throttled), or in how large the inter-thread queues can grow, but I don't personally think that is worth it. Much of that is done on separate threads but there is still an overhead in sending messages between threads, and we don't let the inter-thread queues grow too large or become too out of sync as that can cause other problems. But it does not seem massively faster, and there are inevitably overheads when Opus is doing more with both its UI and in terms of logging, tracking changes (updating collections, etc.), handling a lot more flexibility, etc. So I agree that in this case of thousands of tiny files, FastCopy is a bit faster than Opus (with my configuration at least I didn't try tweaking buffer sizes and non-buffered I/O settings, which I note that FastCopy uses). The time/clock difference are small here.) (Keep in mind the width of this is just a few seconds.
0 kommentar(er)
