Copy partition size discrepancy

[YesAndNo]

The "size" (number of bytes processed) is irrelevant. What matters is how much time it takes. Without compression, Backup and Copy should take about the same amount of time (for the same size drive). And Byte-for-Byte Validation should take about twice that for either method.

In this case the size shown is the reason I started this thread, the time taken was a side comment in case it helped determined whether something was wrong not the main point.

I've just done the same transfer again with validate byte-for-byte and it does indeed show quadruple the size to process. Doubling for validation seems reasonable but for read and write just seems a bit odd from a user perspective. I would have through that 'reading then writing' 50TiB of data with a copy operation was processing 50TiB of data but there we are. At least I know it's intentional now.

[Muad'Dib]

But the doubling (quadrupling with Validate) could simply be a result of an IFW bug that only affects the number of bytes it says are processed (or a poor explanation by TeraByte Support).

If it doesn't affect the copy time (compared to Backup) and if it produces an accurate copy of the proper size, then don't worry about the "Data Remaining/Data Processed" amounts displayed (let TBU worry about it!).

[TeraByte Support]

That's the correct design to be accurate in both speed, estimated time, and actual through-put. It's intended to be that way.