Testing build #100

rejetto · **Reply #45 on:** May 25, 2007, 04:58:46 PM

you mean multi volume archives?

Rafi · **Reply #46 on:** May 25, 2007, 05:02:46 PM

yes...

edit: I really don't see why you should use this, unless you have some strange problems like those described before or in case of large size file(s) (over 4G ? ) .

Kalle B. · **Reply #47 on:** May 25, 2007, 08:15:55 PM

Quote from: rejetto on May 25, 2007, 04:33:50 PM

how hard is the freezing? does HFS become unusable?
i may try to find a multithreading solution.

Yes the whole HFS freezes, ongoing downloads, GUI, everything. It lasts for the whole time that it takes HFS to get the list of files from the network drive. The time depends on connection speed and the number of files & folders on the drive. With 10M LAN-connection and little amount of files it's like a minute or two but when the amount goes into thousands, it's over half an hour...I haven't actually waited any longer that that but just killed the hfs process from the task manager..

Multithreading would be great. I think that would fix this kind of freezing perfectly..

rejetto · **Reply #48 on:** May 26, 2007, 03:15:14 PM

ok, i will work on it.

Quote from: Rafi on May 25, 2007, 05:02:46 PM

yes...

sadly that wouldn't solve the freezing problem

Rafi · **Reply #49 on:** May 26, 2007, 03:33:54 PM

will it help in cases of very large (>4G ) resulted archive file ?

rejetto · **Reply #50 on:** May 26, 2007, 04:00:45 PM

nope.
"archiving" takes no time, it's real-time.
it's the listing that takes time.

Rafi · **Reply #51 on:** May 26, 2007, 04:14:55 PM

rejetto, I think I am not making myself clear ... when the file reaches the "other" side - it is being created as ONE file, and it may be larger the 4G. Would't this be a problem if the remote OS does not supprt it ?

MarkV · **Reply #52 on:** May 26, 2007, 07:24:01 PM

Quote from: Rafi on May 26, 2007, 04:14:55 PM

rejetto, I think I am not making myself clear ... when the file reaches the "other" side - it is being created as ONE file, and it may be larger the 4G. Would't this be a problem if the remote OS does not supprt it ?

Indeed, that's a point. Speaking of FAT16, it's even down to 2GiB. And these limits apply for both download and upload.

Rhetorical question: What if I download ~folder.tar >4GiB and have FAT32? Baaad crash.

Solution #1: HFS detects filesystem and disables the feature in case if FAT. Is there a way to detect the client's filesystem?
Solution #2: ~folder.tar generally breaks into 2GiB pieces to cover all eventualities.

Code: [Select]

FAT16    - max. file size 2GiB
FAT32    - max. file size 4GiB-2B
NTFS4/5 - max. file size 2TiB (currently limited to volume size 2TiB)

see also http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

MarkV

Giant Eagle · **Reply #53 on:** May 26, 2007, 08:21:22 PM

A simple solution would be to split the whole archive in 1GiB files.. "-.folder.part1.tar" "-.folder.part2.tar"

But anyway.. >_< are you really going to download an entire file server that is over 4GiB's? I dont think so. Or can someone give me an example situation?

Rafi · **Reply #54 on:** May 26, 2007, 08:26:00 PM

back to the beginning... that 's what I suggested in the first place - have an option to define if and how to split the archives...

rejetto · **Reply #55 on:** May 27, 2007, 03:34:41 PM

first, TAR doesn't support multi volume
second, do you really think i should spend time supporting mega-archives for FAT32 ?

Rafi · **Reply #56 on:** May 27, 2007, 04:33:17 PM

Quote

second, do you really think i should spend time supporting mega-archives for FAT32 ?

Quote from: Rafi on May 25, 2007, 05:02:46 PM

edit: I really don't see why you should use this, unless you have some strange problems like those described before or in case of large size file(s) (over 4G ? ) .

as I said - no...
... you could/might like to spend it on "tuning" the current implementation like - archiving "permissions" per user, and/or per folder, support for selecting multiple/single folder-targets for archiving in the template (remote side, like the extra column I mentioned before) etc..

Again - a VERY nice feature !!!

maverick · **Reply #57 on:** May 27, 2007, 05:34:57 PM

Quote from: rejetto on May 27, 2007, 03:34:41 PM

second, do you really think i should spend time supporting mega-archives for FAT32 ?

No rejetto. That time can be spent doing other things. I haven't used a fat32 system for years.

MarkV · **Reply #58 on:** May 27, 2007, 08:30:30 PM

Quote from: rejetto on May 27, 2007, 03:34:41 PM

first, TAR doesn't support multi volume
second, do you really think i should spend time supporting mega-archives for FAT32 ?

No, but HFS should at least have an option where you select the used filesystem. If you select FAT or FAT32, HFS disables ~folder.tar for folders larger 2GiB or 4GiB-2B. At least prevent crashes or corrupt files in these cases. Maybe even a warning for the client:

Code: [Select]

Please note that in case your filesystem is FAT32, folder archives larger than approximately 4GiB can not be downloaded correctly.

MarkV

TSG · **Reply #59 on:** May 28, 2007, 05:21:20 AM

Ye good idea Mark V, i wouldn't go coding away to make fat 32 support, ntfs has been the way for windows pc's for at least the last 7 years... even my sisters old windows 2000 machine is on ntfs lol. Not many users would use anything older than windows 2000 nowadays... if they do then they are either on a system that has only like 6gb *wild guess of minimal hdd space* and would be completely useless to do 4gb files on, or they REALLY should think about buying a new computer lol. I will admit, my external hard drive i use is formatted in fat 32, but i wouldn't go putting files bigger than 4gb on it anyway haha.