Thanks for sharing the results of this experiment. I'd be extremely interested in discovering WHY things slowed down when they were ran in parallel. Is it possible that the storage system was simply overwhelmed? Disk seeks were hammering your disk because files were in two different places?
Ahhh... don't your results and conclusion contradict themselves?
Results: "The File System task is the worst option and the slowest one with 130 seconds"
Conclusion: "As you can see, the fastest solution is the File System Task."
It IS a bit confusing until you realize that he was speaking of the non-parallel versions in his conclusion. It would have been handy if he pointed that out in that statement but he did clarify a bit further on in the Conclusion.
When we talked about the tasks in parallel, we did not get a better performance except with the cmd. In few words, in this case, having the process in parallel does not guarantee a better performance
Except for the previously stated bit of confusion in the Conclusion of the article, I liked the article. It was simple, straight forward, and the experiment appears to be repeatable for any one that takes the time to try it. Thanks for taking the time to post it, Daniel.