DirSizeCalc 1.21 (content plug-in)

[Lefteous]

2fabiochelly

Is it possible for your plugin to show the size of files in compresses archives as TC does?

Do you mean couting the size of files inside archives?

[baroncelli]

It seems the plugin is not installed properly. Did you get any error messages during installation?

Nevermind, for some reason it didn't install even if I tried twice. Today I re-tried and it does seem to work properly. Thank you for your help!

[fabiochelly]

Do you mean couting the size of files inside archives?

Yes : in fact, I would like to replace the default column size by yours.
Unfortunately, your plugin doesn't show the size of each files in a zip file as TC does

[Lefteous]

2fabiochelly

Yes : in fact, I would like to replace the default column size by yours.
Unfortunately, your plugin doesn't show the size of each files in a zip file as TC does

There is currently no support for files inside archives in the Content plugin interface, sorry.

[ghisler(Author)]

Like this, you'll need to recalculate only new folders and the folders whose date of modification have been changed.

That's quite problematic - if you change a file in a subfolder of the folder, then the folder's modificaton date will not change.

[icfu]

if you change a file in a subfolder of the folder, then the folder's modificaton date will not change.

That's no problem. The point is that caching will stop permanent recounting which can be quite annoying when folders are large.

Most of times inaccurate old sums are sufficient to get an overview. If one needs actual values one can press F2.

Edit:
Just seen that F2 doesn't refresh DirSizeCalc view, is this a TC limitation? Not sure as I have seen the same behaviour with ShellDetails, too:
http://ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=48382#48382

Icfu

[sgp]

great plugin! two feature requests:
- don't follow reparse points (NTFS junctions) - TC recognizes junctions so you should be able to skip following them, that is don't display size
- show number of hardlinks to a given file
thanks

[Lefteous]

2sgp

great plugin!

Thanks!

don't follow reparse points (NTFS junctions) - TC recognizes junctions so you should be able to skip following them, that is don't display size

Not to follow junctions could be an interesting option.

show number of hardlinks to a given file

I'm not sure if this really fits well into this plugin.

[sgp]

Not to follow junctions could be an interesting option.

I believe so. Always following junctions creates unnecessary duplication, slows down showing results, and the results can be inaccurate, in that the same folders may be counted many times depending on how you set up your junctions.

show number of hardlinks to a given file

I'm not sure if this really fits well into this plugin.

Probably not, but it would be a nice addition. Not as important as not following junctions, though.

[OliverPA]

I just wrote a similar plugin which provides two different modes:
1) skip reparse points
2) count multiple instances of the same file (ie. hardlinks) only once

Parsing my entire c:\ drive, containing 9 root directories, 123k files and 8k directories takes...
size_skip_reparsepoints_all: 1.1 sec, 7.8 Mb RAM
DirSizeCalc: 1.8 sec, 7.8 Mb RAM
size_all_instances: 1.8 sec, 7.8 Mb RAM
TC's cm_CountDirContent: 3.9 sec, 7.8 Mb RAM
size_skip_reparsepoints_unique: 7.5 sec, 10.6 Mb RAM
size_unique_files: 14.0 sec, 10.6 Mb RAM

Surely the performance can be optimized by choosing a more sophisticated method of testing for multiple instances - this one, however, was easy to implement and it works...
Feel free to use the code if you haven't yet added this functionality to your plugin.

Download the files (including source) here.

[JP]

Fabiochelly's signature: Lorsqu'on s'occupe d'informatique il faut faire comme les canards...
Paraître calme en surface et pédaler comme un forcené par en dessous

Il vaut mieux faire comme les canards que d'agir comme les conards.

[Lefteous]

What do you think - should I make skipping mount points and junctions an option or new fields. Please keep in mind that every new feature will double the number of fields.

[icfu]

Definetely a musthave imho.
For me an ini setting would be enough.

Icfu

[van Dusen]

Sorry for interfering the current discussion about junctions etc. with some completely different:

I've two suggestions for the DirSizeCalc plugin:

1. A choice, which allows to show the format of size for directories different from format of size for files. With flag set to "bkM2" for directories and set to default for files, for instance.

2. A new "boolean" field: "Directory is empty". It should be set to "True" if a directory neither gots subdirectories nor files. The plugin needs to look at the "first level" only and don't needs to scan the subdirectories recursively. This field would be useful, if you like to show empty directories in a different colour.

ATM, you can define a rule like "file count = 0" (if necessary with an additional rule "subdirectory count = 0"). But mostly it takes a looong time until the scan of the directories structure has been finished.

It would be even more comfortable, if the plugin could offer two boolean colums:
2a. "Directory is empty (contains no subdirectories and no files)" and
2b. "Directory (recursively) contains no files, but has subdirectories". In this case the plugin needs to scan all subdirectories. Maybe, this is faster than to determine the accurate amount of files / directories / bytes?

[Lefteous]

2van Dusen

1. A choice, which allows to show the format of size for directories different from format of size for files. With flag set to "bkM2" for directories and set to default for files, for instance.

Interesting idea. I will investigate if this is possible.

2. A new "boolean" field: "Directory is empty". It should be set to "True" if a directory neither gots subdirectories nor files. The plugin needs to look at the "first level" only and don't needs to scan the subdirectories recursively. This field would be useful, if you like to show empty directories in a different colour.

I will add it.

2b. "Directory (recursively) contains no files, but has subdirectories". In this case the plugin needs to scan all subdirectories. Maybe, this is faster than to determine the accurate amount of files / directories / bytes?

I'm not sure if this would be any faster.