Feature Request: Multi-Part FTP

On some servers, my FTP speed normally maxes out around 200kB/s.

Just discovered the joys of multi-part (aka multi-segment) FTP with BitKinex. For each server, you can specify a number of concurrent connections (e.g. 50). The program then downloads each file in a number of concurrent chunks, and reassembles it at dinner time. The result is that files get downloaded at 1200kBps instead of 200. Wow! For me, it's an epiphany.

The interface blows, but the uplift in speed is amazing.
I mean, a file that normally downloads in one hour now arrives in ten minutes. Amazing.

So… Adding that to the wishlist for Opus 11 or 12. :slight_smile:
Hoping it's not too much of a specialty need.

I would love to see this feature implemented as well. Hopefully it's not too big of a task though.

seriously, FTP/SFTP/FTPS - all of them, from my perspective, are the worst parts of DO (slow, buggy, unreliable) - they need some real love and attention!

This would be awesome! :slight_smile:

I think FTP functionality is definitely area where Opus falls behind free utilities. Highly inconvenient for those who paid for advanced FTP support in Opus.

I hope that gets added.

Has some progress been made towards this?

This would be an awesome addition to DOpus! Most Segmented software is too clunky, and other FTP options don't implement the feature properly.

Hadn't really thought of multi-part FTP, even though most HTTP file downloader apps use this approach. It would be a great feature. Thanks for the tip about BitKinex - going to try it out.

The complementary feature to this is multi-threaded (ie. multi-file) FTP (ie. up/download multiple files simultaneously - a feature Filezilla has). This is preferable to multi-part FTP when up/downloading lots of smaller files.

If I had to pick one to be implemented first, I would probably go with multi-threaded (ie. multi-file) FTP, since I usually work with smaller files on FTP rather than big ones.

These and multi-threaded sync comparison are the features I would most like to see in Opus 12, since both FTP and sync (comparison is way-too-slow with lots of files/paths) in Opus 11 are limited, and I always end up using alternative utilities for these features (ie. Beyond Compare and Filezilla)

I Concur. This would be great. :slight_smile: Any chance of this feature on the horizon?

Yes, I'd love this too. The speed increase is too great to ignore.

Multi-part is multi-threaded.
You set the number of concurrent FTP connections (typically, 50 is a good number, but you have to test it on your own connection). These 50 concurrent connections can all be used on one big file, or on one medium-size file and 12 small files, etc.

I would appreciate more if DOpus could upload many small files simultaneously, if it made any change. I haven't tested it myself so I don't really know. Of course I mean DOpus to do it automatically. Eg. drag&drop a folder to FTP site and DOpus automatically create many concurrent connections to send small files.

Multi-part is multi-threaded.
You set the number of concurrent FTP connections (typically, 50 is a good number, but you have to test it on your own connection). These 50 concurrent connections can all be used on one big file, or on one medium-size file and 12 small files, etc.[/quote]I initially only called it multi-file, but changed it to multi-threaded as BitKinex mentions both on the web page and assumed they meant multi-file when saying multi-threaded.

I agree the ideal implementation would work as you describe, and would like to see both implemented, but would personally prefer multi-file if only one was implemented.


I am a long time user of DO and this has always been my main gripe and moan. These features should have been a standard way back in Opus 6 or even 8. I have feature requested these suggestions before as I frequently have had to transfer large amount of or very big files via FTP. Having to wait for each and every file to finish in order was not funny a decade ago and in 2015 it's a travesty. I always use CuteFTP for my work load and Opus for those occasional moments where time is not of the essence. I have always felt like DO developers have never taken seriously the importance of FTP support.

We take FTP seriously, and have recently put out several updates for FTP and SFTP support.

We haven't ruled this feature out, but Opus is not a dedicated FTP client so if you want advanced features, (especially ones which don't fit the framework of how every other filesystem we support works and thus how our APIs, error handling, logging, undo, etc. are designed), then we aren't always able to do them without taking away a lot of time from other areas.

It may be added one day, however.

Apart from compatibility and incremental bug fixes I fail to see what major changes have been made to FTP support since version six of DO - over a decade ago. Directory Opus as a whole has gone through major changes and updates whilst the FTP has remained virtually stagnant throughout this period. There have been plenty of opportunities to advance the FTP side over the last decade and incorporate features that people have been requesting. This is why I say the developers don't take the FTP side of DO very seriously and why I have little faith any new feature requests will be taken seriously.

We take FTP seriously but it is just a small part of Opus and Opus it not a dedicated FTP client so features you only tend to find in some of them may not be there. Just as we take the image viewer and conversion features seriously but are not attempting to turn Opus into Photoshop. That's the nature of anything which tries to solve lots of problems vs something written for only one purpose. We might add it in the future but it's not something we can easily add without taking a lot of time away from other work. That's just the reality of it.

There is a VFS plugin API for anyone who thinks we are over-estimating the difficulty and wants to have a go at doing this themselves.

Please link your account if you want to continue this, although I am not sure there is more for either of us to add.

I love these conversion features of Opus, and at the same time I like that you are not trying to turn Opus into Photoshop. To me conversion still very much feels like file management, whereas adding image editing... That would be more like one of these TV-VCR type multi-purpose devices that don't do any one thing really well.

On the FTP side, the reason I started this thread is that in my workflow FTP can be a big part of file management---for instance when working with websites, where loads of files need to be moved at once; or simply copying a couple of large files to a server, on days when time is of the essence. I don't know if some other users feel the same way about FTP, we all have different relationships with this wide field we call "file management".

When I posted, I had no idea of the complexity involved; I asked about multi-part FTP because it would be "nice to have" and it felt a part of my other file management tasks. When you provide that feedback about the complexity of it, it's useful and good to know. I'm sure we Opus lovers all realize that your time is limited and that you need to prioritize. It must be hard to decide which "bells and whistles" are the most important to most users. For my part it's not a problem to keep using BitKinex... If a poll is ever made about desirable bells and whistles, I might cast a vote in direction of FTP... but who's to say I'd feel the same if it meant sacrificing another attractive feature?

Sorry about the ramble, and as always huge thanks for my favorite piece of software. :smiley:

Leo, if "advanced ftp features" are not supported, I think it would be fair to amend the directory opus purchase page. currently, there is an option to purchase "Advanced FTP" for $10 extra. something like "Basic FTP" would be more appropriate as it would avoid confusion for future purchasers. Especially if they buy that and then have to shell out for cuteFTP or bitkinex..

I think directory opus is a great piece of software and I don't know what I would do without it. :slight_smile: However, I did think that this feature would be developed as it's been in demand since prob before 2013. If I had known there was little to no intention of developing it further, I don't think I would have wasted $10 every time I renewed my licence. I look forward to future developments in the program, but will not be repurchasing this feature as it does not provide what I need.