841204 - hi
Moderators: white, Hacker, petermad, Stefan2
841204 - hi
hi all
although i've posted some suggestions before to the ghisler via emails and found some feedbacks, this is the first one i send to the forum. the ones i sent before was before the forum is created, i think.
i congratulate the total commander team for their success in developing such a great, handy and easy to use utility. i think it's inevitable to have with all disk operations. i used to make it run at startup and it will never be closed until i shutdown!
now i've a suggestion to make it more user-friendly.
there's an option to calculate total bytes before copying or deletion. it has only two options, to calculate or not to calculate. there might be a third option as well: to begin copying or deletion and starting a separate thread to calculate the total number of bytes. if thread could do the function prior the ending operation, the second gauge may become active.
did uc?
regards
although i've posted some suggestions before to the ghisler via emails and found some feedbacks, this is the first one i send to the forum. the ones i sent before was before the forum is created, i think.
i congratulate the total commander team for their success in developing such a great, handy and easy to use utility. i think it's inevitable to have with all disk operations. i used to make it run at startup and it will never be closed until i shutdown!
now i've a suggestion to make it more user-friendly.
there's an option to calculate total bytes before copying or deletion. it has only two options, to calculate or not to calculate. there might be a third option as well: to begin copying or deletion and starting a separate thread to calculate the total number of bytes. if thread could do the function prior the ending operation, the second gauge may become active.
did uc?
regards
- ghisler(Author)
- Site Admin
- Posts: 48093
- Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
- Location: Switzerland
- Contact:
Hmm, the problem is that this would make the whole operation slower, because the harddisk heads would have to jump back and forward between the copied file and the directories. So in the end, it would be much slower than either of the current two options...
Author of Total Commander
https://www.ghisler.com
https://www.ghisler.com
hamidi,
Could you please give the the thread a more descriptive name, like for instance "[REQ] Calculate space during copy/delete"? You can do this by editing your post and changing the subject.
TIA
Hacker (Moderator)
Could you please give the the thread a more descriptive name, like for instance "[REQ] Calculate space during copy/delete"? You can do this by editing your post and changing the subject.
TIA
Hacker (Moderator)
Mal angenommen, du drückst Strg+F, wählst die FTP-Verbindung (mit gespeichertem Passwort), klickst aber nicht auf Verbinden, sondern fällst tot um.
841206 - disk operations slows all tasks down
yeah, ur right Ghisler
but let's think about it! there must be a way.
ok hacker, i will.
and i've a question regarding this issue. it's not relevant to tcmd. it's just a question about the Windows operation itself. consider that i've two tasks running at the same time. one, doesn't use any disk operation and one is tcmd copying files from one portion of HDD to another portion of the same HDD. why the other task is reduced in speed eg. when painting while copying?
i assume that disk operations are done by DMA's. so the CPU must not be involved.
this is the question i could never find an answer for it. i would appreciate if u may give the answer.
but let's think about it! there must be a way.
ok hacker, i will.
and i've a question regarding this issue. it's not relevant to tcmd. it's just a question about the Windows operation itself. consider that i've two tasks running at the same time. one, doesn't use any disk operation and one is tcmd copying files from one portion of HDD to another portion of the same HDD. why the other task is reduced in speed eg. when painting while copying?
i assume that disk operations are done by DMA's. so the CPU must not be involved.
this is the question i could never find an answer for it. i would appreciate if u may give the answer.
- majkinetor !
- Power Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: 2006-01-18, 07:56 UTC
- Contact:
This behavior is because DPC Time. It is connected with interupts witch exist while intensive HD operations ocure. DPC blocks execution of threads on the same CPU. CPU is shown as inactive in Proc Explorers, but still you wont be able to work on your computer. Use TaskInfo if you want to find out more about this "pseudo-process" and if you want to see how much of CPU lives in DPC. I guess the same is happening with DVD burners !
Saying that, I have strange problem on my work. I have mashine with DVD burner and 2 CPUs, eatch @ 3GHz (Intel). When I burn, system is unusable despite its power.... and CPU and DPC are next to zero. HardDisk is SATA, DVD is ATA. It would be nice to hear what do you guys think about that...
Saying that, I have strange problem on my work. I have mashine with DVD burner and 2 CPUs, eatch @ 3GHz (Intel). When I burn, system is unusable despite its power.... and CPU and DPC are next to zero. HardDisk is SATA, DVD is ATA. It would be nice to hear what do you guys think about that...
Habemus majkam!
- majkinetor !
- Power Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: 2006-01-18, 07:56 UTC
- Contact: