Suggestion: "robust transfer" speed display
Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods
Suggestion: "robust transfer" speed display
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.
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.)
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.)
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 )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!
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.nikos wrote:these dials are mainly serving as "light entertainment" during long transfers, they aren't making any claims to rigour!
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.
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.
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.
Actually I routinely do these transactions:most copies are over in under 1 sec!
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?