Thanks for the robust transfer option. I have been silently wishing for this for awhile. The ability to get rid of all those windows popups is rather critical when dealing with large file sets. Personally, I would encourage you to default with the robust transfer for all possible copy/move operations, but thats just my opinion. Anyhow, I do have a couple of questions:
1) Does the speed refer to instantaneous (I.E. over the last couple seconds), or is it averaged over the entire transfer?
2) Looks to me like the estimate for remaining time only considers the directory currently being copied, and not the entire directory structure, is this correct? If so, it makes it rather meaningless for multiple or recursive directory copies.
I've been running tests on a couple multi-GB file sets and haven't seen any abnormalities yet.
Robust Transfer
Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods
1. the speed is overall, and also includes time wasted showing error messages etc. Not for benchmarking your hard disk for sure 
2. (I know somebody who'll jump on this thread like a hyena)
the estimated remaining time is a very rough estimate. It doesn't do subfolders until such folders are entered into. So the initial estimate can be way off but gradually it gets better as more folders are resolved.
it is a trade-off between monitoring and actually doing the copying!
2. (I know somebody who'll jump on this thread like a hyena
)the estimated remaining time is a very rough estimate. It doesn't do subfolders until such folders are entered into. So the initial estimate can be way off but gradually it gets better as more folders are resolved.
it is a trade-off between monitoring and actually doing the copying!
-
WimdeLange
- Gold Member
- Posts: 416
- Joined: 2004 Aug 16, 08:41
- Location: NL
Is it not as easy as calculating the amount of bytes calcuting before multiply with the passed time and divide by the amount of bytes done? Errr. that's not the correct formula, not the correct moment to get it right.nikos wrote: 2. (I know somebody who'll jump on this thread like a hyena
the estimated remaining time is a very rough estimate. It doesn't do subfolders until such folders are entered into. So the initial estimate can be way off but gradually it gets better as more folders are resolved.
Groetjes,
Wim de Lange
Wim de Lange
-
WimdeLange
- Gold Member
- Posts: 416
- Joined: 2004 Aug 16, 08:41
- Location: NL
But I don't often copy such an huge volume at all. So maybe a registry tweak or an option on the robust copy screen?nikos wrote:getting the total bytes upfront can take a lot of time
just thing how long ctrl+D takes to figure out sizes when you execute this command from somewhere high up, e.g. C:\
Groetjes,
Wim de Lange
Wim de Lange
Well, the inevitable has happened! Hi! Hi! Hi!I know somebody who'll jump on this thread
If you are concerned about the cursing, just leave the default to "NO". but do provide this as a program option!
Another side-benefit of counting the total size of load-to-be-transferred is that x2 can check if the destination disk has enough space, and warn the user if not. Many a times, the load can not be split because hyperlinks will not find their targets. In such cases, an advance warning will be useful. Currently x2 warns the user only when the latest file-to-be-transferred is larger than the destination file. By the time such a warning comes, it is too late!
Personally I vote for "don't do any extra work up front" as this will make the copying faster. Why waste user time for every copy, just incase the destination disk is full? If user is concerned it isn't hard to check in advance! And with xplorer²'s powerful find features, in most cases, it wouldn't be hard to undo anyhow.
If the time estimate is off, no big deal, I'll ignore it; just get the copy done ASAP, please and thanks.
If the time estimate is off, no big deal, I'll ignore it; just get the copy done ASAP, please and thanks.