[implemented in Tc11rc2] Sync-Tool: Keep the number of read directories (on screen)

[petermad]

This is for info purposes to estimate how long a re-comparison will take approximately

Then, wouldn't it be better displaying the time used after the first comparison.

[oko]

to AntonyD
Counting of folders is very unprecise base for estimating of time of counting work (because folders can have different number of files - as you have mentioned). But Joube requests as simpliest as possible. Thus solution must be based on what already exists. From speed of changing of number of folders found one can estimate time to finish. Maybe it will be unprecise but it can help decide if swith to another work or wait.

For future: therefore more precise would be counting of files and there would be much more constant increasing so much more predictable how much time it will read.
Joube is maybe good counter, so e.g. he very quickly counts that if there are 10 589 total folders found in previous counting (the number must be shown, that is the request for now) and during reading increases number by 286 folders per second, it will take 37 seconds. But common user appreciates % count metering or information about remain time in footer during reading.

[JOUBE]

This is for info purposes to estimate how long a re-comparison will take approximately

Then, wouldn't it be better displaying the time used after the first comparison.

No:

- This feature is not so easy to implement like it is to copy the counter to the top, and I want it to have it in the Tc11 release, as ghisler(author) confirmed to me.

- What speaks against the number. It's just a - helpful - number ...

- Another day and WAN is slower: I see it at the start of the run at the counting. So I can see today it will take more time...

- And one thing is clear: whether this number makes sense for me or not is up to me to decide.

- So far nobody has bothered about the huge space between the buttons, now that I want to use it useful, everyone wants to have a say about it. Why?

- Sometimes I think about, that you debaters here, including ghisler(author), don't even use the Tc as a real daily power tool with large amounts of data ... But only testing with _small_ amounts of data.


Joube

[oko]

This is for info purposes to estimate how long a re-comparison will take approximately

Then, wouldn't it be better displaying the time used after the first comparison.

The re-reading (second, third... reading) is much quicker than first reading, so time of first reading would be misleading.

[JOUBE]

As of Tc11rc2, the desired value (the counter) is saved in the totalcmd.log immediately after the run.

That's great, because you can now read out this value and process and display it yourself.

I have now completed the corresponding routines for myself and the value is now displayed on screen (with a transparent background) exactly where it makes sense and is desired for me. It turns out that storing in totalcmd.log actually has great advantages compared to my original suggestion, because you can display several of these values (I show currently around 10 of these values) together, which is very good for an overview.

Thanks for saving the counter in totalcmd.log!

So the implementation of the suggestion (in this different - but probably even better - realization) actually made it into Tc11 and that's really great.

It's a new and very good feature.

Joube