DonationCoder.com Forum
Main Area and Open Discussion => General Software Discussion => Topic started by: Contro on January 07, 2011, 08:38 PM
-
I am going mad because the behaviour of dropbox and syncless to synchronize several folders. Syncless writes changes control inside each folder affects.
The name of these folders are : .syncless (hidden) and _synclessArchive.
I would like to control the size of a group of folders "discounting" the size of these folders : .syncless and _synclessArchive.
Really I only need to select a windows folder and determine its size discounting all the .syncless and _synclessArchive may contain inside it.
I hope you can help me.
Example : the folder Fol1 contains ten subfolders (two of them are those of syncless) and the other eight contains four subfolders each one (two of them are those of syncless). I wan to know the total size of the folder Fol1 discounting the size of the syncless type folders.....
Best Regards
Of course any other program with more possibilities is welcome.
-
Nobody knows ? :(
I think something like this may help me :
"File Manipulator
File Manipulator is the ultimate file/folder manipulation utility. It allows you to create self-contained Droplets to Move, Copy, Delete, and Rename files/folders, Change File Types and Creators, Log files, and more. You can limit which files are manipulated using a variety of powerful criteria, including Size, Label, Name, Attributes, Comments, Image Type, Version, etc. File Manipulator and the Droplets created by it run natively on Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X."
But for windows.
The idea of conditions seems perfect.
Best Regards
-
i think something like Directory Opus could be used or any other decent file manager program.
you would do it be viewing the parent folder in "flat view" mode. this kind of view reveals all sub folders and files (within the parent folder).
the normal "tree" parent/child view becomes "flat" so you see everything together.
after that, you could list the folders by name and easily select the ones you want to know the sizes of (or deselect the ones you don't).
-
I'll try and comments.
I hope can save a view of a folder excluding certain elements and display the desired information as the folder size discounting thos elements
-
DOpus can definitely do that. You can select files based on all sorts of clever rules, and as nudone says, that if combined with 'flat' view should work quite well.
There's a very good support forum for DOpus which would probably have the details already.
-
I think you might be able to do what you want with SpaceSniffer (http://www.uderzo.it/main_products/space_sniffer/index.html). You can certainly exclude files with the Filter, but, the Attributes list doesn't contain the Directory Attribute, so I'm not certain. Perhaps you could contact Uderzo to ask. However, at least for files, look at the unfiltered vs. filtered screenshots below.
[Edit 2011-01-09, 20:55-] TreeSize (http://www.jam-software.com/) [/Edit] looks like it can do what you want, but, you have to have one of the payware versions, either Personal or Pro. Filtering isn't listed in the free version. And it may not be worth paying if you have already have adequate features in your file manager.
-
Exists a freeware option ?
Best Regards.
Directory Opus seems very good program.
-
I think you might be able to do what you want with SpaceSniffer (http://www.uderzo.it/main_products/space_sniffer/index.html). You can certainly exclude files with the Filter, but, the Attributes list doesn't contain the Directory Attribute, so I'm not certain. Perhaps you could contact Uderzo to ask. However, at least for files, look at the unfiltered vs. filtered screenshots below.
[Edit 2011-01-09, 20:55-] TreeSize (http://www.jam-software.com/) [/Edit] looks like it can do what you want, but, you have to have one of the payware versions, either Personal or Pro. Filtering isn't listed in the free version. And it may not be worth paying if you have already have adequate features in your file manager.
-rjbull
I will comment
This is not a operation i am going to do everyday. So I need a freeware.
-
rjbull , I was looking freeCommander and seems to have filter with files. But I don't see folder filter.
I'll comment.
-
SpaceSniffer accomplish perfectly well his function, but I think is not initially prepared to filter folders or save a filter over a folder with subfolders and give parameters about that.
I don't understand, but I think don't give me all subfolders in the example i try over my pc. .......Empty folders don't appear. But I have one occupied and also don't appear.
I'll try comment with uderzo.
Best Regards
The filter is only in affirmative way (inclusions), not exclusions I think.
-
I put an email to Uderzo. i think small folders are not considered. But my folder contains two important dwg files. So I think is not a good space sniff.
-
In Folder options of Directory Opus how can i propose several folders (how can I separate or something)
I try with , ... ; ... : ... / ... with no results.
Is it permitted to use several folders real or with the use of wild cards only ?
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8585/screenshot1001201101090.png) (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/screenshot1001201101090.png/)
How can I configure the listing of a folder to know or see the sizes of the subfolders ?
(http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/91/screenshot1001201101164.png) (http://img841.imageshack.us/i/screenshot1001201101164.png/)
Best Regards
-
Total subfolder count seems to be for the second question i did......
pending the first
-
Go to the View menu, and choose "Flat View" - there are three options, so you'll need to find the one you like.
The help is pretty good, and the support forum is here:
http://www.gpsoft.com.au/Support.html
They know a lot more than I do!
-
I put the doubt there.
Best Regards
-
i'd do it how timns explained. though, i do have a few buttons that do the same job so i don't go through the menus.
-
Go to the View menu, and choose "Flat View" - there are three options, so you'll need to find the one you like.
-timns
Dunno if this any help:
I think the flat views show a "Location" column by default which shows the path (if not, you can add columns as in Explorer)
If you sort by that, the files and folders will be grouped according to the path.
-
Nice indeed.
I continue some doubts in the specific forum.
:)
-
SpaceSniffer [...] but I think is not initially prepared to filter folders or save a filter over a folder with subfolders-Contro
I don't see any way to save filters from session to session. But, you say you aren't going to do this very often anyway.
I don't understand, but I think don't give me all subfolders in the example i try over my pc. .......Empty folders don't appear.
I would guess that they are there, but don't show up on the space map either (a) because they're too small or (b) because you have to zoom in to a folder to see its subfolders. But, I think all subfolders are counted.
The filter is only in affirmative way (inclusions), not exclusions I think.
Exclusions are definitely permitted, and were used in my earlier post: Example *.jpg;>100kb;>2weeks
:red;:yellow
:tag:red+yellow
:tag:r+y
|*.exe;|*.dll
:attr:a+h-s
:attr:a,h,-s
|:attr:a
:attr:-a
(|) = starting '|' (pipe) negates
-
I put an email to Uderzo. i think small folders are not considered. But my folder contains two important dwg files. So I think is not a good space sniff.
-Contro
Small folders are considered, but not necessarily shown on video due to the small screen area. However, their size is considered in the computation of the parent folder size.
You may want to try lowering the "Min element size" parameter in the configuration dialog to check if the small folder appears. If it doesn't appear it means it's too small (consider that the main purpose of SpaceSniffer is to find big elements, not small elements) but, still, it is considered in the parent size. It's only a display "issue".
You may want to check it by using the File/Export function. This function will export each filtered item, even the smallest one.
In next version (1.1.3.0 few days to release) there will be more filtering/exporting capabilities. I'll try to squeeze into the new version also a "filter by folder name" function.
Let me know if this is of any help.
Greetings! Umberto Uderzo
-
:)
Sure.
I'll comment.
Best Regards
-
Well... i think i managed to add the filter for folder name feature. At least the positive filter. I'll need to think more about the negative (exclusion) filter.
Anyway... the semanthics is the following:
Say you want to filter folders by name, you are looking for temp folder. Then you type "\temp" as filter pattern (*, ? are supported). The backslash is the switch that tells SpaceSniffer that you want to apply the rule to folders instead of files.
SpaceSniffer will show all files which path contains the "temp" folder. All files directly under the root search (drive) are automatically excluded because the drive is not a folder. So, if a file has complete path, say "c:\program files\myapp\temp\abc\log.txt", it will be included by the filter. This means that if the temp folder contains any other number of folders, all of them are included because all of them share the temp folder.
Is this behavior correct?
Umberto
-
Well... i think i managed to add the filter for folder name feature. At least the positive filter. I'll need to think more about the negative (exclusion) filter.
[...]
Say you want to filter folders by name, you are looking for temp folder. Then you type "\temp" as filter pattern (*, ? are supported). The backslash is the switch that tells SpaceSniffer that you want to apply the rule to folders instead of files.-uuderzo
Umberto, the current version of SpaceSniffer doesn't appear to support the Directory attribute... if that's still with us in Vista onwards (I'm an old-time DOS person). Would it help to support that directly, or is that in effect what you're doing?
-
RJ, can you please elaborate on this? I know that there is the directory attribute and i use it internally. I don't see any point in exposing this attribute to the user. But perhaps it's me i don't see it.
I mean, in SpaceSniffer folders are "file filter driven": they appear only if the filter populates them with files (or other folders that are recursively populated ecc ecc...). So, telling SpaceSniffer to filter only folders is useless because they will be empty. I understand the use of a folder name filter anyway.
If you can list an example of use of the directory attribute it would be nice so we can elaborate on this.
Thank you! Umberto
-
RJ, can you please elaborate on this? I know that there is the directory attribute and i use it internally. I don't see any point in exposing this attribute to the user.
[...] telling SpaceSniffer to filter only folders is useless because they will be empty.-uuderzo
Umberto, (a) I was getting confused (b) I used DOS so long it conditions the way I think :-[
The OP wanted a way to exclude certain directories from the listing. In a DOS program, I'd expect to state a wildcard spec plus Directory attribute, which would mean exclude matching directories. It now occurs to me that this leads to ambiguity, because as I understand it, DOS handles directories rather as empty files. So does excluding a directory only exclude the "directory file" itself, or does it also exclude the contents as well, as the OP wanted? It now sounds like you've implemented a way to do the latter, which would suit the OP.
Sorry, muddle-headed owing to too many late nights on the computer...
-
Well, filter patterns are file related.
But i'm currently working (fighting) with a parallel folder patterns syntax.
It will be unusable to apply the same filter pattern also to folders. Results would be reallt weird.
So, the default will still be to filter on files, which is natural to most users.
If one wants to filter also on folders, it should use the new syntax, that is to prepend a backslash to the pattern.
The backslash will not mean "root", it will be just a switch that will assign the pattern to the folder filter.
I choosed the backslash just because it is one of the forbidden chars so i don't risk to find a element with this char in the name.
With the new syntax, if you want to filter, say, all jpegs into temp folders (wherever they are) you will write:
*.jpg;\temp
Does it sound useable? Umberto
-
So, the default will still be to filter on files, which is natural to most users.-uuderzo
Agreed. I was obsessing about the OP, which is a slightly unusual requirement. Most people, most of the time, will just want to see where all the space has gone.
I choosed the backslash just because it is one of the forbidden chars
I wondered why you'd chosen that. I'd have recommended "!", but, it's possible to use "!" in a file name, so your convention makes much better sense.
*.jpg;\temp
Does it sound useable? Umberto
Yes! :)
-
Good to know.
I have still some dubts about the "\" switch, which may be confused with the "root" specifier, but available forbidden chars are \, /, :, *, ?, ", <, >, |...
* and ? cannot be used because they are part of the pattern match syntax, | is used to negate, " sounds odd, as long as < and >...
The only survivor looks like :, that i already used as switch specifier starting char ( see :tag:, :attr: and so on). For sake of uniformity i should add the :folder: switch, but looks rather long to type. Maybe i can add both "\" and :folder: synonims.
Any hint? Umberto
-
* and ? cannot be used because they are part of the pattern match syntax, | is used to negate, " sounds odd, as long as < and >...-uuderzo
I wouldn't want <> anyway, as I think of them as redirection symbols.
For sake of uniformity i should add the :folder: switch, but looks rather long to type. Maybe i can add both "\" and :folder: synonims.
Looks like you are left with the only possible choice. Maybe you could abbreviate it a bit, e.g. :dir: or :fol: or :fdr: or something.
Thanks!
-
I'm concerned about adding too many synonims... at the moment i think it's better to keep only the backslash switch.
I attach a screenshot of the candidate 1.1.3.0 release. You can notice 4 new features over the many other features added):
1. Filter by folder name (here it's not shown but also negative filters are supported). After playing a bit with this feature i can say that it's cool.
2. Notice that the folders that match the folder filter pattern are displayed with name in BOLD font. This makes easier to understand why stuff has been included by the filter.
3. I filtered also by zip and jpg files. Notice they are colored with different colors (optional) because they belong to different file classes (customizable)
4. The selected element will drop a shadow (optional) to make it easier to visually track.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Greetings! Umberto
-
I attach a screenshot of the candidate 1.1.3.0 release. You can notice 4 new features over the many other features added):
1. Filter by folder name (here it's not shown but also negative filters are supported). After playing a bit with this feature i can say that it's cool.
2. Notice that the folders that match the folder filter pattern are displayed with name in BOLD font. This makes easier to understand why stuff has been included by the filter.
3. I filtered also by zip and jpg files. Notice they are colored with different colors (optional) because they belong to different file classes (customizable)
-uuderzo
I don't think I really understood the syntax before. Just to check I've got it right now, the release candidate is looking at all folders, and shows all their sizes. But, it is set to filter folders that start "program*," and within those, it considers JPG and ZIP files. SpaceSniffer's main statistics at the top of the screen now show those files in those folders only, and those are the ones where text is in bright white, and specially coloured. Other folders and files are shown with their sizes, but not considered in the main statistics.
Is that correct?
4. The selected element will drop a shadow (optional) to make it easier to visually track.
Good idea; I think that helps.
Sounds like a fair bid to be the best in this class of software :)
-
I don't think I really understood the syntax before. Just to check I've got it right now, the release candidate is looking at all folders, and shows all their sizes. But, it is set to filter folders that start "program*," and within those, it considers JPG and ZIP files. SpaceSniffer's main statistics at the top of the screen now show those files in those folders only, and those are the ones where text is in bright white, and specially coloured. Other folders and files are shown with their sizes, but not considered in the main statistics.
Is that correct?
-rjbull
Well... not. I think that this way it should be difficult to understand. Maybe i lacked of explanation in my previous post. In the posted example, the filter is composed of two main parts: a folder mask and two file masks.
If you consider the disk structure as a tree, the purpose of the folder mask is to cut all branches whose paths don't contain "program*" in at least one nesting level.
After the tree has been cutted down, the file mask will search for the file extensions. It's like a two dimensional filter: the first axis is the folder dimension, the second axis is the files dimension. Both are perpendicular and not directly related.
Consider this example:
root
|
+Program Files
| |
| +Data
|
+Users
| |
| +Programs
| |
| +Data
|
+Windows
| |
| +System
The previous folder mask will consider all files under "Program Files\..." and all files under "Users\Programs\..." but not other branches because they don't contain "program*".
The statistic of a folder is always the sum of the size of their direct children, hence in the screenshot you will see that the C:\ drive contains 1.7Gb of JPG or ZIP files that are stored under a program* folder (at any nesting level). Actually, the C:\ drive is 300 Gb in size (without filters).
Suppose that your disk structure contains many folders with similar names, but you don't know how many and where they are (and at which nesting level they are). Without a folder mask you must examine each branch of the disk structure to find them. With folder mask you can find every "temp" folder with a click.
I think that the semanthics is simple (perhaps only to me because i programmed the algorithm, eheh), but if you have any other interpretation please let me know. I need to understand if the behavior of SpaceSniffer is what people expects.
Thank you! Umberto
-
Go to the View menu, and choose "Flat View" - there are three options, so you'll need to find the one you like.
The help is pretty good, and the support forum is here:
http://www.gpsoft.com.au/Support.html
They know a lot more than I do!
-timns
Well. Directory Opus is too much for anyone.
A nice piece of software.
Someday not very far all the advantages of directory opus will be incorporated to last version of windows.
In the present moment I recommend this program to everyone to use everyday.
This is not my situation. So I will try with the freeware SpaceSniffer.
:P
-
Contro, you will need to wait some other few days...
Tomorrow i changed my mind about the folder name filter. Having two different pattern match methods is pretty confusing. Now i propose another solution to the problem (more efficient).
If the pattern doesn't contain the backslash (*.jpg) the pattern matching is applied only to the file name itself. So, this will make SpaceSniffer behave exactly like the released version.
If the pattern contains che backslash (\temp) the pattern matching is extended to the whole file path (final file name included).
Example: (\temp) which doesn't contain a wildcard, is implicitly extended to (*\temp\*), so "c:\windows\temp\data\abc.txt" is found
Example: (*\temp\*.jpg) will match any jpg file under a temp folder at any nesting level (because the second * will match any char sequence, hence any folder nesting)
Example: (*\temp* ) will match any file under a temp folder or any file whose name starts by temp
The only drawback is that i lose the BOLD hilight because il will need too much CPU power to do realtime.
But... maybe working always with the full path will be limiting... I wonder if the folder pattern should be extended the the full path (file name included) or only to the path (file name excluded). I still wonder which case is the most flexible...
-
Please forget my last post.
Release Candidate will be out soon. Only a last burst of tests.
Greetings! Umberto
-
It's like a two dimensional filter: the first axis is the folder dimension, the second axis is the files dimension. Both are perpendicular and not directly related.
[...]
Consider this example:
root
|
+Program Files
| |
| +Data
|
+Users
| |
| +Programs
| |
| +Data
|
+Windows
| |
| +System
The previous folder mask will consider all files under "Program Files\..." and all files under "Users\Programs\..." but not other branches because they don't contain "program*".
-uuderzo
I didn't realise that the folder wildcard implied the equivalent of DOS wildcard "*folder*". I thought it meant "folder*", no front wildcard, so would only apply to the green branch above. It would have excluded everything else, shown in red branch. I just needed to grasp that it's *folder*. I think I see what you mean about having two dimensions of filters.
Suppose that your disk structure contains many folders with similar names, but you don't know how many and where they are (and at which nesting level they are). Without a folder mask you must examine each branch of the disk structure to find them. With folder mask you can find every "temp" folder with a click.
That problem is a real pain with my file manager, Total Commander (http://www.ghisler.com/). Anything to help is welcome!
-
RJ,
I think that if one wanted to explore just folder*, he would start the snif operation from that folder instead of the entire drive. A folder* behavior wouldn't add in flexibility. It would be only a different mean to obtain the same result.
So, do you consider the current release candidate behavior useful?
Greetings! Umberto
-
I think that if one wanted to explore just folder*, he would start the snif operation from that folder instead of the entire drive.-uuderzo
Yes. I'm not thinking clearly again. An all-to-frequent state of affairs :-[
So, do you consider the current release candidate behavior useful?
Yes, but, please can you make sure the folders and filters wildcards are explained in Help, like you did above?
-
Sure.
Here it is an extract of the User Manual about the folder name filter:
"The filter by file name mask applies only to files. Sometimes you may want to search only under some folders, say, temp folders. You don't know where they are and at which nesting level on you media device, but you know they are there, and possibly more than one.
In this case you can use a folder name mask filter. Folder name mask filters are the same as file name mask filters, except they apply to folders. To identify a pattern as a folder mask pattern, simply prepend it by the '\' (backslash) char. The backslash char doesn't have the meaning of "root folder", it is simply a switch. It has been choosed as "switch" char because it is forbidden in file and folder names (it is a path separator), hence it cannot exist into an element name.
When you apply a folder name mask filter, only files whose path contains a matching folder are inluded. Moreover, folders which name matches the mask are hilighted with the BOLD style in their name. This makes easy to understand why stuff has been included by the filter. If, on the other hand, you are using an exclusion filter (by prepending the whole pattern string by the negation pipe (|) char), excluded folders are not hilighted just because they will not be displayed.
Example: by typing \temp every file under a temp folder (at any nesting level) is included. For example, C:\Windows\temp\data\abc.txt would be included.
Example: on the countrary, by typing |\temp every file under a temp folder (at any nesting level) is excluded.
Hint: You can consider folder and file masks as a two dimensional filter. The first axis is the folder mask, the second axis is the file mask. Both axis work independently. When you apply a folder+file mask you are defining some kind of "coordinate" in a 2D space. You first "cut" the directory tree structure and isolate the searched folders, then examine the wanted file names by the other mask."
...and, on the online quick tip window...
By folder name
Same as by file name, but prepend with '\' (backslash) (|).
The folder mask considers files whose path contains elements
that match the mask at any nesting level.
Matching folders are renderer with BOLD font.
The mask itself cannot include the '\' char.
Example: \temp will include only files whose path contain
at least a 'temp' folder.
For example, C:\windows\temp\data\abc.txt is ok
Example: |\progr* will exclude files whose path contain
at least a 'progr*' folder.
The starting backslash char does not mean 'the root', it has
been choosed as switch because it is a forbidden char
in files and folders name.
(Note: Folder masks are slower than file masks)
Honestly, i'm still looking for the "magic words" that make the user understand the concept with less text. Sometimes i've a bit of difficulty because i'm not english native. Hints are welcomed!
Greetings! Umberto
-
Honestly, i'm still looking for the "magic words" that make the user understand the concept with less text. Sometimes i've a bit of difficulty because i'm not english native. Hints are welcomed!-uuderzo
I should warn you than whenever I've "helped" someone's "magic words," the author generally ends up thinking I make it too long! But I think that's excellent. I've taken the liberty of changing a few spellings and very minor grammar points, but what you meant is perfectly clear:
"The filter by file name mask applies only to files. Sometimes you may want to search only under certain folders, say, temp folders. You don't know where they are and at which nesting level on your media device, but you know they are there, and possibly more than one.
In this case you can use a folder name mask filter. Folder name mask filters are the same as file name mask filters, except they apply to folders. To identify a pattern as a folder mask pattern, simply prepend it by the '\' (backslash) char. The backslash char doesn't have the meaning of "root folder", it is simply a switch. It has been chosen as "switch" char because it is forbidden in file and folder names (it is a path separator), hence it cannot exist in an element name.
When you apply a folder name mask filter, only files whose path contains a matching folder are included. Moreover, folders whose names match the mask are hilighted with the BOLD style in their name. This makes easy to understand why stuff has been included by the filter. If, on the other hand, you are using an exclusion filter (by prepending the whole pattern string by the negation pipe (|) char), excluded folders are not hilighted, just because they will not be displayed.
Example: by typing \temp every file under a temp folder (at any nesting level) is included. For example, C:\Windows\temp\data\abc.txt would be included.
Example: on the contrary, by typing |\temp every file under a temp folder (at any nesting level) is excluded.
Hint: You can consider folder and file masks as a two dimensional filter. The first axis is the folder mask, the second axis is the file mask. Both axis work independently. When you apply a folder+file mask you are defining some kind of "coordinate" in a 2D space. You first "cut" the directory tree structure and isolate the searched folders, then examine the wanted file names by the other mask."
Online quick tip window:
By folder name
Same as by file name, but prepend with '\' (backslash) (|).
The folder mask considers files whose path contains elements
that match the mask at any nesting level.
Matching folders are renderer with BOLD font.
The mask itself cannot include the '\' char.
Example: \temp will include only files whose path contain
at least a 'temp' folder.
For example, C:\windows\temp\data\abc.txt is ok
Example: |\progr* will exclude files whose path contain
at least a 'progr*' folder.
The starting backslash char does not mean 'the root', it has
been choosen as switch because it is a forbidden char
in files and folders name.
(Note: Folder masks are slower than file masks)
Thanks, Umberto! :)
-
RJ,
Thank you for your corrections! I'll apply them to the manual then, last test round (you never know...) and i'll release.
Greetings! Umberto
-
Just for information...
1.1.3.0 is out. Enjoy!
http://www.uderzo.it/main_products/space_sniffer/download.html
-
1.1.3.0 is out. Enjoy!-uuderzo
I've only used it for seconds - but oh, is it ever FAST!
Thanks, Umberto!