Ubuntu QA:
BlogBrainstormPackage status
Log in
Ubuntu QA
The Ubuntu community has contributed 21549 ideas, 132424 comments, 2606791 votes
Idea sandbox Idea sandbox
Popular ideas Popular ideas
Ideas in development Ideas in development
Implemented ideas Implemented ideas
Idea #356: Copy / Move File Queue

Written by tloxscrew the 29 Feb 08 at 00:54. Category: System. Related project: Nothing/Others. Status: New
Rationale
Update__
Please add something like this (thanks to kliklik)

kliklik
___________
Here's a mockup I've done, based on the ideas from this thread and a couple of my own. Tell me what you think.

http://ultimate.in.rs/temp/ubuntu/CopyQueue.png
http://ultimate.in.rs/temp/ubuntu/CopyQueue_Expanded.png

The top progress bar shows the total progress, two buttons beside it pause/cancel the entire queue.

The cancel buttons may have confirmation they pause the queue/item, ask you if you're sure and than either stop or continue the process. For the brave crowd, they immidiately stop the process :)

Folder button opens the destination folder.

Only one process at a time unless forced to start.

Up/Down arrows reorder the items based on priority, the higher ones get processed first.

Clear button clears all the finished jobs.
--------------



me, tloxscrew
______________
If you ask why this?:

When you want to copy more than one file, every OS justs start to copy all files at once, causing the machine to slow down because of the massive read/write activity..
If the file transfer processes happen one _after_ another it will stop grinding, fragmenting ang slowing down (especially when working with low-speed drives or ports, huge amounts of data, but also just so).

The benefits:
your HD will thank you for a long life
your data will be less fragmented
you will handle your data with an ease, even large amounts
like when performing a copy/move/backup/migration/cleaning-up/sorting-stuff -like-activity.


What about giving it an option to copy files to _multiple destinations from one source_ ?? give something to all at once (flash drive, external HD, USB 1.1, network location(s), mobile, fridge, mp3-player, car, elevator, all toilets, entertainment center, picture frame(s), you get the point).

Thanks to all who contributed and voted.
I think that this just has to exist and to be default and standard (improvement welcome :)

1711
votes
up equal down
Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #356
Written by tloxscrew the 29 Feb 08 at 00:54.
Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #356 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!
-4
votes
up equal down
Solution #2: Use ionice
Written by cheesehead the 8 Apr 09 at 03:22.
The 'ionice' command sets the io scheduling class and priority for a program. A user can easily downgrade the io priority of any process. ionice is included in the 'schedutils' package, already in the repositories.
It's powerful and solves a lot of disk-thrashing if used properly. Read the man page before using it!
47
votes
up equal down
Solution #3: queue kio slaves activity
Written by antiriad_ubuntu the 16 Jan 09 at 17:18.
identify kio slaves activity with same protocol + src + dst and append action to a queue. maybe it's not suitable for all protocols but on file copying would be nice.
51
votes
up equal down
Solution #4: Implement a queue for HDD tasks
Written by idzuna the 19 Mar 09 at 23:18.
I suggest that there be a queue for copying between the same HDD's or even one's that are busy.

Example:
Task 1: HDD1 > HDD2 10 mins of copy time
Then the user wants to copy something from HDD1 > HDD3
Task 2: HDD1 > HDD3 5 mins of copy time

If they were in a queue (perhaps a queue that the user could edit in order of importance) the overall copy time wouldn't be affected.

also, if both.
HDD1 copies to HDD2
HDD3 copies to HDD4
then they could run simultaneously as the head of the HDD's is dedicated to each task.
Note: I say copy, but this can be applied to any HDD task
16
votes
up equal down
Solution #5: pause button should be a slider to set speed
Written by xubaj the 27 Aug 09 at 00:01.
clicking the pause button pauses the transfer
click-dragging down reduces the transfer speed
the pause button should indicate this feature with a little slider on the left side

reducing the speed is useful if the file transfer consumes to much CPU or HD time and you can't keep on working
22
votes
up equal down
Solution #6: small files should be priortized
Written by xubaj the 27 Aug 09 at 00:08.
sometimes you start a transfer of some big files and while still transferring, you want to copy some small documents to work with. the small files would be enqueued and you'd have to wait for the big files to complete. in this case the small files should be prioritized.
12
votes
up equal down
Solution #7: Redesign Nautilus code to make copy command pluggable
Written by cudjoe the 28 Nov 09 at 11:04.
I read somewhere that the nautilus code would not allow easily to manage the queue, because it relies on gvfs to run the move/copy process.

I propose that nautilus should offer a hook to define an gconf entry that specifies the move/copy utility to use.

Because there are several tools already, but they don't replace the default copy/move operation.
Eg. Minicopier, Ultracopier, ...
9
votes
up equal down
Solution #9: Max files, priority, also for compression actions and...
Written by XDarkness81 the 26 Apr 10 at 21:24.
Single click high priority (Move/copy this file/folder next )

Allow simultaneous copy's on differed devices. (checkbox)
For all that matter compression, encryptions and so on should be able to be placed in that queue to...
Only on system idle checkbox (set copy/move/extract/compress ... as nice level 15 )
And let the app remember the choices you made. (idle, simcopy)
(Or better, put them in a configuration dialog) keep the file action dialog simple)

Ah and put a hide to background after 3 seconds/on large transfers to... (maybe pop back up after a large transfer) Since now it only on top or minimize, i hate that!

Thanks nice idea, it has been buggin me to for a long time..

[EDIT!]
In light of hiding the information dialog...
After the copy/move dialog has calculated its ETA if that should be longer than 1 minute disable the keepontop. if its almost finished (for all files in queue) (let's say the last 10 seconds or 30) pop it back up.. "so you know.."
[/EDIT]
5
votes
up equal down
Solution #10: Giving file transfer as a whole low priority.
Written by Ypthor the 12 May 10 at 04:30.
In case I want to do somethingelse while waiting for the transfer to finish. This could be automatic (but overridable), with nautilus watching if there is user activity, and raising io priority only when the user is idle.

10
votes
up equal down
Solution #11: Allow drag n drop to add to queue.
Written by ways the 28 May 10 at 09:53.
I agree with lots of these solutions, I just wantet to add something.

When you have one or more transfers going (or waiting in queue), allow drag'n'drop on the queue to enqueue more files to the same destination. Example here:

http://tvboks.no-ip.org/upload/files/copy_more_files2.png
7
votes
up equal down
Solution #12: In the duplication/migration document window cancels the left side adds the susp
Written by ghostry the 4 Jun 10 at 09:08.
In the duplication/migration document window cancels the left side adds the suspension button
This not only solves the duplication/migration/elimination priority problem, moreover may when necessary reduce hard disk's busy degree, is advantageous for us fast to complete other work.
6
votes
up equal down
Solution #13: Ext4 Defrag
Written by XDarkness81 the 13 Jul 10 at 20:58.
Don't know if this feature is implemented bud the file transfer manager could also keep in mind the filesystem its copying to, if i remember correct the new ext4 filesystem can reserve a few blocks of diskspace that can eliminate fragmentation.

maybe optional as plugins to the manager (and not that we have to select them later on, just add them and load them into memory if they are usefull (if filesystem exists/target fs is...)
5
votes
up equal down
Solution #14: Most applications should have a higher default ionice priority
Written by supercheetah the 24 Oct 10 at 09:47.
This idea is mostly in response to the problem that responsiveness in Linux goes down as disk activity goes up, and that is definitely an issue, but putting in a queue to fix the problem at the heart doesn't really fix the problem. I/O (disk activity) heavy applications are still going to cause slowdowns. I just played around with ionice on a few applications I run that are pretty I/O heavy, and it went a long way in resolving this issue for me, so I have an alternate solution here.

The I/O priority of applications can be put into three categories:

Idle (3): an application will only get I/O when when the system is idle. I won't recommend this as a default, but there may be some applications/programs where this makes sense as its default I/O priority.

Best Effort (2): Just as its name implies, and it has sub-classes (0-7, zero being highest priority). Round robin is used for any applications in the same class.

Real Time (1): The application's I/O takes precedence over anything else. Definitely *not* recommended.

Most applications will have a default I/O best effort nice priority based on their cpu nice priority (cpu_nice+20/5), which means for most user applications, they will have a best effort nice priority of five. I think this is too low. The cpu nice priority doesn't need to change, but I think the default ionice priority should be best effort seven.

Propose your solution

Attachments


Duplicates


Comments
guiral.lacotte wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:01
The windows sofware that make exactly what you describe:
http://supercopier.sfxteam.org/modules/news/

GIO/GVFS should make it possible for Gnome.

shad0w_walker wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:14
The new GVFS has a system for keeping track of transfers in such a way, I imagine it wouldn't take alot to give it the option to queue transfers.

If they wanted to really impress intelligent queues would be awesome. If the system were able to use a set of rules to determine what should be done at once with out affecting the speed of the actions, for example copying a file from CD to disk A whilst also copying a file from disk B to a networked drive. The two are between seperate sets of devices and shouldn't affect the speed in a noticeable manner so could be run at once. This would let things run nice and fast whilst not limiting you to one transfer when not needed.

tloxscrew wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 02:17

It could also improve a simple backup/migration/cleaning up process which consists of just copying the files into a different folder or onto a different partition (for example before formatting a no-more-used Windows partition).

mephcpp wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 08:30
Also it would be nice if you can be able pause this transfers.

PiHalbe wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 08:43
And priorize transfers. While you copy your full set of movies, you might want to give some images to your friend who just dropped by. Maybe allow some key combination to "priority copy" via drag&drop.

insulae wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 14:16
great idea!! i like that, i want this since '98 :D

joe wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 19:23
Yes! I've wanted this for a long time.

The way I see this working is for single file transfers it would look the same as it does now. For multiple file transfers (selecting multiple files, then drag and drop) the transfer dialog would have a small arrow or something to expand a queue, which would let you move files higher or lower on the list. Also, any time a new transfer is started the source and destination are checked to see if there's already a transfer going from the same source to the same destination and if there is, it automatically adds it to the existing list.

peterdk wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 19:29
Yeah, I just tested Hardy Heron with GVFS and it just copies 2 files at once... How stupid??

This is a basic thing that really needs to be present!

My vote for:
+ Queue file transfers
+ Pause file transfers
+ Edit the queue of the file transfers (move up/down queue)


glisignoli wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 20:51
This is a must have! When copying large amounts of files I usually set up a ftp client/server so I can manage my files.
We need this, even if its only an option!

fluo wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 21:17
+1
At least show which file is being copied/moved!

rawsausage wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 23:00
This is implemented in the upcoming Gnome release.

bubieyehyeh wrote on the 2 Mar 08 at 17:23
It would be useful if copy/move were ionice'd to the lowest best effort mode.

tepee wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 09:17
Supercopier is the only soft wich miss me from Windows.

With more intuitive features (like drag & drop for change order in copying), it could be a wondefull application.

Moreover, Supercopier is open-source now.

glisignoli wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 09:43
Try this:
http://a.courreges.free.fr/projets/minicopier/minicopier-en.php

jimmux wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 00:27
This would be a very nice feature, and would make the already sad file copying in vista look appalling. If we could change copy priorities dynamically (i.e. reorder the queue) it would be fantastically useful.

oybon wrote on the 17 Mar 08 at 18:38
This is possibly the most useful new `feature' that could be added to any os (in my case). I do a lot of work with large datasets and huge numbers of images and there is little more annoying than accidentally setting two move/copies going at once as seeing the whole process (and system) grind to a halt.

In addition I would add intelligent moving.

Say drive A has 100Gb free and drive B had 50Gb free, and you want to copy 60Gb from A to B, and 30Gb from B to A, the system should automatically take into account real-time and future space availability (and fragmentation issues) and deal with the operation successfully.

It would also be useful, if there is manual re-ordering for there to be an interphaze button/option. This would effectively add more work and slow the process down, but in some situations (paired datasets etc...) could be useful.

kliklik wrote on the 21 Mar 08 at 21:20
Here's a mockup I've done, based on the ideas from this thread and a couple of my own. Tell me what you think.

http://ultimate.co.yu/ubuntu/CopyQueue.png
http://ultimate.co.yu/ubuntu/CopyQueue_Expanded.png

The top progress bar shows the total progress, two buttons beside it pause/cancel the entire queue.

The cancel buttons may have confirmation they pause the queue/item, ask you if you're sure and than either stop or continue the process. For the brave crowd, they immidiately stop the process :)

Folder button opens the destination folder.

Only one process at a time unless forced to start.

Up/Down arrows reorder the items based on priority, the higher ones get processed first.

Clear button clears all the finished jobs.

blindvic wrote on the 11 Apr 08 at 11:24
I like it. And maybe add pause button for all the processes.

svaens wrote on the 1 May 08 at 09:35
I was just noticing the same problem, and was searching for a solution when I found this brainstorm.
I totally agree!!
It is silly to at least not provide the functionality to choose how to copy, at the least, a pause button (as well as the stop button currently available in nautilus).
Queue options would be even better!

I doubt anyone needs further arguments as to the merits of this idea!

Techno.FM wrote on the 5 May 08 at 04:54
I have to move large files all the time using ftp or ssh on my laptop but I rarely stay in the same place long enough to be able to finish a file transfer. Being able to pause / resume even after rebooting / suspending / hibernating would be awesome.

Being able to do this stuff natively would be great and probably appreciated by most.


herrleiche wrote on the 22 May 08 at 07:44
Now for a great system like Ubuntu it's a necessity

on5sl (Idea reviewer) wrote on the 31 May 08 at 17:56
I would like to see this feature with a sort of algorithm that auto-parallelizes these file transfers...
When you would transfer some big files and then would like to write some smaller files it would calculate a sort of percentage and then parallelize the transfer of the very small file with the big file so that these tasks are done in an optimal way.

dedicated wrote on the 6 Jun 08 at 12:11
this is essential and should be implemented already a long time

LC всадник cbet wrote on the 16 Jun 08 at 04:34
This is a must. +1

I put a duplicated one a few weeks ago, but yours is way better.Thanks

amdlintuxos wrote on the 24 Jun 08 at 14:21
the kliklik's idea is awsome!!!
great if it will be valid, it will be most usability function in filemananger that i have ever seen.
respect!

animaniac wrote on the 8 Jul 08 at 12:57
Why on earth hasn't this been implemented yet.
+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

xanax wrote on the 17 Jul 08 at 20:19
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 + 1

:-)

yuretsz wrote on the 8 Aug 08 at 10:41
I think that this feature should be also expanded with some kind of dock-like progress bar, so users could see overall progress.

r0g wrote on the 12 Sep 08 at 00:11
Yes really, I spent years hoping MS or some 3rd party would implement this for Windows and they didn't. Now I'm on Ubuntu I'd still love to see it. I'm constantly copying tonnes of files from one place to another.

It would also be nice to have an unstoppable mode that doesn't pause or stop or otherwise wig out if it hits a file it can't copy. Ideally it would copy everythng it could, generate a report, save its status and allow resume one you have sorted out hte problem that was preventing it being copied i n the first place.

Roger Heathcote.

PiHalbe wrote on the 18 Sep 08 at 11:19
Should be like in the mockup. Plus the 'Pause all' option, that is.

tuwXyz wrote on the 22 Oct 08 at 23:40
+1 here
Resuming copy/move operations (TotalCopy, CopyHandler) is one of two features I miss from windz...

(the other one is posibility to play video/audio from remote location - mssamba can do it).

wolfie2x wrote on the 28 Oct 08 at 07:12
+1; very useful feature. Still not available in Intrepid..

opu.e wrote on the 11 Nov 08 at 09:56
Again +1

toxwa wrote on the 12 Dec 08 at 22:11
I still can't believe this isn't a feature in windows/linux/any other operating system that I know. I really would like this, especially for copying files from network shares.

I also like the idea of pausing/resuming the individual operations. And maybe an option to set a filesize limit for small transfers (i.e. any file under 10kb doesn't have to get in queue and can be moved/copied while other transfers are in progress).

Also as r0g suggested, the copying shouldn't stop when a file can't be moved/copied and a report with maybe a resume option should be presented. I hate it when I leave my pc alone to copy al lot of files and then come back after an hour to see it stopped after 5 minutes for one file it couldn't move. And then searching which files were already copied, and which ones I have to try again.

gvvsss wrote on the 18 Dec 08 at 01:28
I too strongly agree with the need of such a copy/paste handler in ubuntu defaults. It poses a great strength and improved ease of use in ubuntu

baldurpet wrote on the 12 Jan 09 at 03:36
That mock-up looks great! I would love to see some part of that implemented into Ubuntu.

Shouldn't there also be an option to pause a file transfer:
1. You're moving files to an USB memory stick
2. You need to remove the memory stick for some reason
3. Then you can pause the file transfer, while you do some work with the memory stick
4. Insert the memory stick into the slot and press 'Resume'

It could also be activated if the power goes off an external HDD during transfer- then the transfer would simply be 'Paused' and you could turn the HDD on again and press 'Resume'. Now that would be extremely helpful!

qube001 wrote on the 17 May 09 at 00:58
+1

some copy list sorting by size or any other param would be handy some times

anyway I hope we will have this smart copy mamager !




michele74 wrote on the 11 Aug 09 at 11:12
Very nice idea.
I'd like to add a self checking of files with a verify option (or md5 alternatively).
Than, if I stop a file operation (ex. a move) the destination file should be deleted (atomic operation on single file, not entire selected files).


gouttonio wrote on the 7 Nov 09 at 01:37
Hi, Max -

This is a critical core functionality.
I've been waiting for that one for a loooong time ; in fact, I'd gladly exchange 3D Desktop & woobly windows for a "pause copy" button.

As I'm working on neither project I should shut it. But I won't. That's what this site stands for. It allow people to shout, yell, or feverishly type on their keyboard what they think is important, vital, or simply a very promising idea.
Well, this is CRITICAL. It made me (and others too, I've heard) boot on the crappy W$ XP to achieve some LAN backup of a friend's computer whilst I was filling his eyes of stars with the benefits of the *nix system he was diving into. The ethernet cable was buggy, but that's not the point. The point is : For users used to SuperCopier (see post #1), I mean "How could I live without it 'coz it saved my ass so many times?" used to (eg: recycle bin), it IS a repelling lack of simple functionality.

Two years ago I stated : "Heck, if this isn't done soon, I might as well do it cause this'll be loooooved !".

Today, I'm wiser : "Hack, if this isn't done soon, I might as well write my wrath as the moon falls behind the faraway trees, 'cause I sure as hell don't have time to read the appropriate docs/code it/debug it myself right now, and I seriously doubt I'll have it ... ever !"

To you, bottom-page reader

-antoine

rbsfou wrote on the 26 Nov 09 at 12:11
I'm particularly interested in this; not only would queuing help prevent fragmentation on local filesystems, but my pet peeve is with nautilus' handling of SFTP.

If the network connection is broken (as it frequently is on 3g, mobile networks seem to pander to those who want 'bursty' connectivity!), i have to umount .gvfs, kill and restart gvfsd, nautilus, and possibly the gnome-panel too.

Ideally gvfs's ssh / ftp handling could be set to a less patient timeout, and/or it could query NetworkManager (if this is acceptable within GNOME) to find the current connection status.

Also, the option to resume transfers is a priority for me too here.

sevenus wrote on the 4 Dec 09 at 16:42
I've been wondering why no OSes seem to have this very basic "feature" for a long time. I think it is a basic design flaw to have multiple file transfers fighting for disk access, increasing total transfer time exponentially.

How do we get this implemented? I have some programming experience, but don't have a clue where to start. Is there anyone out there able to take this on?



Post your comment