Welcome Guest! You need to login or register to make posts.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
photoguy  
#1 Posted : Monday, September 27, 2004 8:31:00 AM(UTC)
photoguy

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 9/27/2004(UTC)
Posts: 11

It seems the estimate for the upload time remaining can be wildly off.

I heard this could be related to time for processing thumbnails - but I did some testing and that seems to be a very small part of the problem.

Tested uploading 83MB of files, and the upload completed successfully (great), however the estimated time results were quite off:

After 5 minutes (given time to stabilize) IU was reporting 10 minutes remaining, which was an order of magnitude incorrect. Then towards the end of the upload after a couple hours it was reporting *more* time than should have been remaining.

The reason I feel this is important is because it seems it can confuse or frustrate end users. We noticed people commenting about it during our beta testing.

Thank you for your consideration.

PG
bizzy  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, September 28, 2004 5:08:00 PM(UTC)
bizzy

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 8/18/2004(UTC)
Posts: 41

I agree this is quite confusing. It took me a while to understand what was happenig.

My understanding about your experience seems that IU is correct. It looks like IU keeps recalculating time remaining depending on its check at certain intervals of upload.

Still it is good if the Aurigma folks confirm my understanding and write a bit of how this thing is estimated.
Fedor  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:18:00 AM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,481

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 40 time(s) in 39 post(s)
My understanding about your experience seems that IU is correct. It looks like IU keeps recalculating time remaining depending on its check at certain intervals of upload.

Yes, exactly. Image Uploader 3.5 will finally fix this problem.
Best regards,
Fedor Skvortsov
wouterc  
#4 Posted : Thursday, October 07, 2004 2:24:00 AM(UTC)
wouterc

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 7/19/2004(UTC)
Posts: 5

Is there any way which can be done to solve this issue? For example make you own progress bar etc etc. Because the story was that it should also be fixed within version 3.0
Fedor  
#5 Posted : Friday, October 08, 2004 3:46:00 PM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,481

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 40 time(s) in 39 post(s)
Unfortunately the task of estimation time remaining is not as simple as it may seem. Image Uploader have to take into consideration not only upload speed, but also speed of resizing and compressing to JPEG.

But anyway, in further releases we will try to make it smarter.
Best regards,
Fedor Skvortsov
wouterc  
#6 Posted : Friday, October 08, 2004 8:31:00 PM(UTC)
wouterc

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 7/19/2004(UTC)
Posts: 5

True but I sent the original file to the server. So I don't use anyting like resising/compression and stuff and still it keep on recalculating.
photoguy  
#7 Posted : Saturday, October 09, 2004 11:39:00 PM(UTC)
photoguy

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 9/27/2004(UTC)
Posts: 11


>Unfortunately the task of estimation time remaining is not as simple as it may seem. Image >Uploader have to take into consideration not only upload speed, but also speed of resizing ?>and compressing to JPEG.

I don't think this is the primary issue. Large inaccuracy in estimation can be seen even if no resizing or jpeg compression is taking place.

Even if resizing and compression are taking place, it should not be significant because it is such a small percentage of time.

To prove this point, in my example the upload data was 83MB and about 50 photos. The time to resize and recompress 50 photos is only <2% of="" the="" time="" to="">

So given the time to compress and resize is only 2%, this should not account for wild discrepencies (if the algorithm is coded optimally).

I think most of us would gladly accept a 2% margin of error.
PeterT  
#8 Posted : Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:35:00 AM(UTC)
PeterT

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 6/16/2004(UTC)
Posts: 9

Agreed. The time thing is crazy! I understand that the Aurigma folks want to make it as accurate as possible, but, in the meantime, PLEASE consider the following implementation:

Definitions:
Elapsed Time of Upload (EL)
Estimated Time Remaining (TR)
Estimated Total Upload Time (ET)
MB sent (MBS)
MB total (MBT)

Known:
EL, MBS,MBT

Then:
ET = EL*MBT/MBS
TR = ET - EL

So the Display Values Are:
[Current] = TR
[Total] = ET

Seems easy. Am I missing something here? :-)
Fedor  
#9 Posted : Thursday, October 14, 2004 3:21:00 AM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,481

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 40 time(s) in 39 post(s)
Thank you for your ideas, but it is algorithm we use right now :)

You missed important step of preparing thumbnails which happens before upload. It is our main pain as entire progress consists of two different steps:

1. Preparing thumbnails
2. Uploading

Upload process is regular and it is easy to calculate TR, ET, EL.

Entire process of thumbnails creating is irregular as source images can have different sizes. On other hand thumbnails creation for separate picture depends linear on pixel count. This way algorithm should consider pixel count of each picture, as well as total pixel count (sum of pixel count of all images).

For precise progress displaying we should know 2 important estimations before begining of thumbnail creation or upload:

1. Megapixels per second processing (it is based on total computer speed);
2. Upload speed.

At initial phase we can estimate this values using tests. We can have also some empiric estimations. After begining thumbnails creation and uploading we can correct them.

We have started to implement this algorithm which will be available in Image Uploader 3.5.

May be I have explained a bit complicated, but please let me know if anything is unclear :)
Best regards,
Fedor Skvortsov
PeterT  
#10 Posted : Friday, October 15, 2004 4:51:00 AM(UTC)
PeterT

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 6/16/2004(UTC)
Posts: 9

Perhaps I'm missing something. I'm using version 3,0,825,0 and this formatting string:

<param name="ProgressDialogEstimatedTimeText" value="Time remaining: [Current] of [Total]">.

I'm also using:

<param name="FilesPerOnePackageCount" value="25">

Here is a screen I grabbed during a 139 file upload:

UserPostedImage

As you can see, the upload is about 1/2 done and the time is wacky.

I would be happy if you just left out the thumbnail time estimate. The more important number is the estimated time remaining to upload files.

Edited by user Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:50:02 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

PeterT  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:07:00 AM(UTC)
PeterT

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 6/16/2004(UTC)
Posts: 9

anyone?
Fedor  
#12 Posted : Friday, October 29, 2004 9:11:00 PM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,481

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 40 time(s) in 39 post(s)
Hello,

I am sorry for delay. We will fix this problem within November.
Best regards,
Fedor Skvortsov
Fedor  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:58:00 PM(UTC)
Fedor

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member, Administration, Moderator
Joined: 7/28/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,481

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 40 time(s) in 39 post(s)
The problem was finally fixed in Image Uploader 3.5:

View post
Best regards,
Fedor Skvortsov
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.