Suggestion: "robust transfer" speed display

Discussion & Support for xplorer² professional

Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods

dreams
Member
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 2004 Oct 06, 23:15

Suggestion: "robust transfer" speed display

Post by dreams »

I think it'd be more useful if the speed is the amount of data copied during the past second or few seconds, instead of an average from the beginning of the transfer. I recently had to copy a very large amount of files, and there were many small files and a few big ones. The small files kept the average low, and when they're done and the big ones started transferring, the average slowly, slowly goes up... it's impossible to see the true speed at which those big files are being trasnferred.
User avatar
nikos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15771
Joined: 2002 Feb 07, 15:57
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by nikos »

these dials are mainly serving as "light entertainment" during long transfers, they aren't making any claims to rigour! :)
dreams
Member
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 2004 Oct 06, 23:15

Post by dreams »

Heh I understand, but it would be nice to know if, for example, the transfer suddenly slowed down, then I can investigate whether it's because of problematic sectors on the hard disk or the file being too fragmented, or something.  :)
User avatar
fgagnon
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3737
Joined: 2003 Sep 08, 19:56
Location: Springfield

Post by fgagnon »

But it would be nice to know if you are even considering making that display more than light entertainment.  ;)

This has been mentioned many times, & is sorely due for improvement.

If you would only get the entire size of the job 'up front', it would be simple to show bytestransferred/totalbytes ... and bytes remaing ... and a much better estimate of time remaining -- even though transfers speeds can vary.

It is important to know if the target media has enough space and would be useful to have a decent estimate of time remaining on larger move/copy operations -- decisions based on the result include whether to abort the whole transfer & try again later (while at lunch or a meeting or overnight) or pare down the item selection & try again, or just get a cup of coffee now. (Yes, one can still continue to use the 'puter for other things; but mine bogs down for other work and becomes error-prone when I/O is saturated.)
User avatar
nikos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15771
Joined: 2002 Feb 07, 15:57
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by nikos »

(repeating myself) we have discussed that when you are copying files then any other action that causes disk access should be minimized. Otherwise you'll get perfect stats and slow copies!
User avatar
fgagnon
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3737
Joined: 2003 Sep 08, 19:56
Location: Springfield

Post by fgagnon »

I will concede that stats are ok on a folder-by-folder basis, even though there are l-o-n-g waits for display update each time a very large file is encountered.

But, I've never seen useful stats on the overall job when the transfer involves multiple large folders.
dreams
Member
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 2004 Oct 06, 23:15

Post by dreams »

nikos wrote:(repeating myself) we have discussed that when you are copying files then any other action that causes disk access should be minimized. Otherwise you'll get perfect stats and slow copies!
What I was hoping for, was for xplorer2 to reflect the effect of these "actions that cause disk access". You can't see them if the speed is an average. (I don't really care about remaining time anyway :p)
User avatar
nikos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15771
Joined: 2002 Feb 07, 15:57
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by nikos »

there are l-o-n-g waits for display update each time a very large file is encountered
you mean x2 hangs during large transfers?
this shouldn't be
every 64K transferred or so from the file you should be able to pause, see updates etc
pila
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 2003 Jun 18, 08:50
Location: Croatia

Post by pila »

nikos wrote:these dials are mainly serving as "light entertainment" during long transfers, they aren't making any claims to rigour! :)
Mybew it was your idea :) but, unwillingly, you have created a great tool. I must often test speed of file transfers (digital cameras, wired networks, wireless, Bluetooth) and I have been extremely happy after I have found out your new "light entertainment" since previously I had to manually check the time, add the files' size, and divide them.

This is a VERY important feature for me!

I agree that some smaller period should be timed also, maybe 10 seconds (and until 10 seconds are reached, use current time as a divider). Ideally, we would be able to see both counters. Overall speed and (e.g.) last 10 seconds. but If I have to choose, only the last 10 seconds are better choice.
chp
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 2004 Jan 27, 07:56

Post by chp »

Yep, it would be nice and a pretty "harmless" features:
- whatever "improved" algorithm for average speed
- get size of all selection and show additional ETA in brackets
- update nubmers no more than once or twice a second! Those twitching numbers is no good!
:)
narayan
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 1430
Joined: 2002 Jun 04, 07:01

Post by narayan »

Yes-good idea!

A larger averaging period would be better: x2 need not update the speed (or even the remaining time) every second. How about refresh all indicators after every 5 seconds (or so) ?
User avatar
nikos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15771
Joined: 2002 Feb 07, 15:57
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by nikos »

most copies are over in under 1 sec!

anyway, no matter what these dials say, the point is that "whatever will be, will be"; you can't make things go faster or slower. Actually you can make things go slower if the display algorithm consumes much needed copying resources!
chp
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 2004 Jan 27, 07:56

Post by chp »

Ok, forget algorithms (it wasn't my idea anyway :)

But how about ETA for selection of files and sparce UI refreshing?

It isn't about resources; numbers look weird / can't be readed when they are changning dozens times per second.

ETA - very useful when you copy entire CD/DVD or even more frequent case - LAN.
User avatar
nikos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 15771
Joined: 2002 Feb 07, 15:57
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by nikos »

i've just added an option that calculates the transfer size upfront, at user's risk :)
narayan
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 1430
Joined: 2002 Jun 04, 07:01

Post by narayan »

most copies are over in under 1 sec!
Actually I routinely do these transactions:
1. to floppy (typically 1 minute)
2. To CD-RW (typically several minutes, as my writer can write at 16x max)
3. To network drives (typically several minutes, as the loads are large and the network has speeds of 1-2 MB/sec due to choking at hubs)
4. To/from USB-based hard disk (several minutes, as my old USB port gives only ~800 kB/sec)

So in all cases the remaining time/speed indicator are non-trivial!

Would an averaged (and thus stabilized) reading of speed/remaining time reduce the efficiency too much?
Post Reply