The progress meter when copying files incorrectly reports the speed at which they are copying. At the moment it's stating between 100-140MB/s when it's only copying at around 20-30MB/s.
This bug, if i remember, is new to DOpus8. But while I'm here i'd also like to ask why, when copying one or more directories, Opus doesn't traverse the sub-directories to fetch the contents (number/size) so the progress meters work correctly?
Thank You.
Caching can mean the current and peak values go much higher than the disk can physically achieve (for any period of time) but the average value (bottom one) should be accurate. I say should because I've never measured it. I'm not sure what it's the average of, either. (Last 60 seconds? Entire copy operation? Just the current file?) But that's the one I'd pay attention to, I guess.
Try this option: Preferences -> File Operations -> Copying (2) -> Count files in folders before copying (accurate progress indication when copying folders)
I'm afraid i already thought of that. This was taken 1/2 way through a 3GB copy.
[quote]
Try this option: Preferences -> File Operations -> Copying (2) -> Count files in folders before copying (accurate progress indication when copying folders)[/quote]
Oh my! 
You really DO get what you paid for in Opus.
Mind, it was the same when i used it on my Amiga; every time i thought a feature was missing, i'd be shown otherwise. Good work all round.
This behaviour isn't new to DirectoryOpus since version 8. I never got even roughly correct speed information with version 6.x. And I'd like to see this problem solved.
I made a test copy today of 46.65 GBytes of data from a RAID disk to an external FireWire disk, and the result was as shown below.
IEEE 1394 has a brutto bandwidth of 400 MBit per second, so an average value of 54.3 megabytes per second simply isn't possible. Besides that, I'd be glad to get my hands on a single disk capable of writing that fast ... 
Doing an approximated calculation over the measured time (which is at least displayed correctly) of 34:12 minutes, the resulting sustained transfer rate should be around 23.2 MBytes per second, lesser than half of the speed displayed.
I copied a large amount of data from the same RAID to an empty SATA disk and got awesome transfer rate of about 130 MB/s (calculated not even a third of that) !!??
Any idea, Mr. Potter?
Kind regards,
Willy Dee
I guess it's a bug. It happens.
[quote]
jon wrote:
I guess it's a bug. It happens.[/quote]
Sure it does 
[quote][quote]jon wrote:
I guess it's a bug. It happens.[/quote]
Sure it does [/quote]
No it doesn't... it's an 'un-documented feature' 
.
I already adressed this bug here at the beginning of December. I filed a bug report at the website but never got any response. When wil this be adressed? Current speed might be tricky to calculate due to caches, but the average speed is simply (copied_bytes/(current_timestamp-start_timestamp)), how can one possibly get this wrong?
And just to remind ya: The Copy Queue! I'm still unhappily starting 4 or more copy processes just to manually pause them for speed reasons.
[quote]
AllOlli wrote:
I already adressed this bug here at the beginning of December. I filed a bug report at the website but never got any response. When wil this be adressed? Current speed might be tricky to calculate due to caches, but the average speed is simply (copied_bytes/(current_timestamp-start_timestamp)), how can one possibly get this wrong?
And just to remind ya: The Copy Queue! I'm still unhappily starting 4 or more copy processes just to manually pause them for speed reasons.[/quote]
The copy queue is a fantastic idea. I'm tired of having countless windows on pause, ready to copy.