Open Source · Apache-2.0Linux / macOS / Windows No telemetry · No paid tier
← All comparisons

fast-copy vs cp

cp reads files in the order the directory lists them. On an SSD nobody notices; on a rotational disk with thousands of small files, that order is effectively random seeks. fast-copy asks the filesystem for each file's physical location first (FIEMAP), sorts the reads by disk offset, and bundles small files into streams — the head sweeps the platter once instead of jumping around it.

The measured difference

12,347 files, 110.9 MB (9 KB average), rotational XFS source to SSD destination, page cache dropped before every run, timing includes sync -f (durable copy). Best of three interleaved rounds:

ToolTimeThroughput
fast-copy (dedup ON)5.93 s2.5× faster than cp
fast-copy (dedup off — same bytes as cp)8.19 s13.5 MB/s · 1,507 files/s
cp -ar14.99 s7.4 MB/s · 824 files/s

Full methodology and every command here.

Feature differences that matter

 fast-copycp
Read order on diskphysical-offset sorteddirectory order
Post-copy verificationon by defaultnone
Content dedup across the treeyes → hard links, cached across runsno
Reflink / CoW clonesautomatic where supported--reflink=auto (opt-in)
Sparse filesSEEK_DATA extent walkingheuristic detection
Pre-flight space checkyes, allocated-size awarefails mid-copy instead
Progress / ETAlive, per-phasenone
Installed everywhere alreadynoyes

When cp is all you need

Honest answer: most single-file and small-folder copies, especially SSD-to-SSD — cp is instant, always there, and on modern coreutils cp --reflink=auto even gets you CoW clones on btrfs/XFS. Reach for fast-copy when the job is big enough to have a progress bar, spins a disk, contains duplicates or sparse files, or when “it finished” needs to mean “verified, not hoped”.

Download fast-copy  ·  Everyday examples: the local copies guide

Also compared: fast-copy vs rsync · fast-copy vs scp / SFTP · fast-copy vs Robocopy · fast-copy vs FastCopy · fast-copy vs TeraCopy · full benchmark methodology