although it doesn't need the bump, I'm adding a vote to bump these three (queued sequential, non-buffered copy and Michael's open with) up the priority list.
for years, probably the biggest issue has been system non-responsiveness during large copy/sync operations. It's been so endemic, my workflow has adapted to it - thinking it was unavoidable and "just the way it works". Having to move these operations to off hours and/or in sequential order led me to scripting jobs (good thing to learn, I admit, but...) to run overnight but some things do need to be done during the day. It can become a painful process to manage the copies and syncs manually when it would be SO much easier to set the jobs up and have them run on their own. I'm talking hours per week here...
Besides, having multiple operations run in parallel just thrashes the dickens out of the drives. On a physical box, it's a killer.
for years, probably the biggest issue has been system non-responsiveness during large copy/sync operations. It's been so endemic, my workflow has adapted to it - thinking it was unavoidable and "just the way it works". Having to move these operations to off hours and/or in sequential order led me to scripting jobs (good thing to learn, I admit, but...) to run overnight but some things do need to be done during the day. It can become a painful process to manage the copies and syncs manually when it would be SO much easier to set the jobs up and have them run on their own. I'm talking hours per week here...
Besides, having multiple operations run in parallel just thrashes the dickens out of the drives. On a physical box, it's a killer.
Comment