To be fair, estimating file copy/move progress correctly is hard.
The most correct way would probably be to group small, medium and large files , so you don’t get random access, then cross-reference that with prior saved disk benchmarks. But that’s a bit over the top.
Although the grouping (and tar-ing the small files) would speed up the copy/move, because no random access.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
To be fair, estimating file copy/move progress correctly is hard.
The most correct way would probably be to group small, medium and large files , so you don’t get random access, then cross-reference that with prior saved disk benchmarks. But that’s a bit over the top.
Although the grouping (and tar-ing the small files) would speed up the copy/move, because no random access.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 14 hours ago
i mean if you can’t give an estimate, don’t give an estimate. otherwise you’re just lying to the user and making things harder for them.
just show how much of the data has been processed and let the user make of that what they wish.