Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Show progress when using copythreshold (GUI feature request) #549

Closed
evert-mouw opened this issue Jun 21, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

Show progress when using copythreshold (GUI feature request) #549

evert-mouw opened this issue Jun 21, 2021 · 4 comments
Labels
discuss way forward is unclear; needs discussion of approach to take and why effort-high issue is likely to require >20h of effort, perhaps much more enhancement issue is a request for a feature, and not a defect feedback Information has been requested; may be closed in 30 days if not provided. impact-low low importance wontfix maintainers choose not to work on this, but PR would still be considered

Comments

@evert-mouw
Copy link

I'm using copythreshold and copyprog(rest) to invoke rsync for new files. (I'm not even sure if this is still advised; maybe the in-build transfer is up to speed nowadays?) I profit from the bandwidth control provided by rsync, but a disadvantage of using the copythreshold option is that the GUI doesn't show the progress in the "Status" column.

Maybe it would be possible to show the progress, e.g. by intercepting the output of rsync --progress ? This is a minor feature request, and please disregard this if the build-in transfer speed is nowadays on par with rsync (in that case the documentation might be updated).

Screenshot_2021-06-21

@gdt gdt added discuss way forward is unclear; needs discussion of approach to take and why effort-high issue is likely to require >20h of effort, perhaps much more enhancement issue is a request for a feature, and not a defect impact-low low importance labels Jun 23, 2021
@gdt
Copy link
Collaborator

gdt commented Jun 23, 2021

I added "discuss" because I think it's a good question if this external rsync mechanism should still exist. I'd rather remove that than fix up how it works, if there's no good reason to keep it. Perhaps you could experiment with not using it?

@gdt gdt added the feedback Information has been requested; may be closed in 30 days if not provided. label Jun 23, 2021
@evert-mouw
Copy link
Author

Sorry for not replying earlier. Maybe next week I can test it over a gigabit LAN connection. Unfortunately my normal 2nd location has a very unstable internet connection, which makes it unsuitable for testing.

@gdt gdt added the wontfix maintainers choose not to work on this, but PR would still be considered label Mar 19, 2023
@gdt
Copy link
Collaborator

gdt commented Mar 19, 2023

Could you test performance? The null hypothesis is now that external rsync is not useful, and I'm more inclined to remove it that to make it work better.

(Please post results in plain text.)

@gdt
Copy link
Collaborator

gdt commented Mar 22, 2023

Performance reports to unison-users are still wanted.

Especially with deprecation of external rsync, this has been moved to https://github.com/bcpierce00/unison/wiki/Feature-Requests

@gdt gdt closed this as completed Mar 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discuss way forward is unclear; needs discussion of approach to take and why effort-high issue is likely to require >20h of effort, perhaps much more enhancement issue is a request for a feature, and not a defect feedback Information has been requested; may be closed in 30 days if not provided. impact-low low importance wontfix maintainers choose not to work on this, but PR would still be considered
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants