Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
Forum Moderators: phranque
Problem I have found out is all ftp client programs I have tried do a wierd thing when displaying over 2,000 files. They will show about the first 2,000, then show approx the last 50 files. That leaves a lot of files not displayed.
Does anyone know of a ftp client that will display all files? Even if there are more than 2,000 in a directory?
The problem is not with uploading files. It is viewing over 2,000 files with ftp client after they are uploaded. Like if you wanted to change a file name and the file isn't displayed.
You know it is there because the http directory list when viewed with a browser shows the file.
Yes I know it looks all right. But if you look close at all the file names you will see some missing. With me it was files in the IO and IR area through Qs of the displayed files.
It is kind of decieving because the first 2,000 show up ok, then the last part of the files show up in the x or y or z range and that makes it appear ok. but you are missing a bunch of files in the middle.
I did some reseach and found that a LIST -a command might help. I thought I would have to command line it but when I had filzilla open up the files directory it issued the LIST -a itself. But I did notice something else. Below the list command was "226 Output truncated to 2000 matches". Filezilla itself tells you you won't be able to list all files.
e.g. you can type rename, delete, put and get commands immediately after login without having to list files as FTP clients tend to insist upon doing.
IMO, 2000 files in a directory is insane. As you've noticed, any time any device or program needs to read the entire directory it takes an unnecessary amount of time to do so.
Sure it can be done, and it works, and you may see no performance problems . . today. Over time, this may come back to present a real problem for you, just in locating files if not in performance.
In this case, it's taking even more because this program is reading that directory remotely.
One of the carts I built I dumped all the images willy-nilly into a common directory. Bad idea. I boosted the performance a hundredfold by scripting a method to organize them in directories, then added code to the script to the effect that if the target directory doesn't exist, create it.
If this is an issue of SEO where you need all the files in one directory, write an .htaccess rule so the URL's stay the same but refer to the actual directories.
I also believe [WS_FTP] is the most popular FTP program.
I love this program: small footprint, simple, no overfluffed point and drool GUI's that require more training to use than time spent using them. I simply hate programs like SmartFTP that make such a big flippin' deal over a simple task: move my files from HERe to THERE.
However, it's notable to mention, WS_FTP has gotten the smackdown here many times because regular FTP is not a secure method of transferring files. If you use it, change your password often, be on the lookout for trouble.
If I have to break up my files in to smaller directories that means people have to do searchs in each directory for the files on a subject.
There is no way to order the files other than mp3, video,pdf, etc. So people will just have to search each directory for files on a subject no matter what ext. Subject may have files with more than one ext.
File names are not standardized or consistant enough to to order by name in different directories. If it were possible, the webpage direcory descriptions could get extremely wild. Subjects from A to K just doesn't quite cut it.
Additionally, the problem comes up there are 1999 pdf files so there will have to be 2 pdf file directory when more are added.
It is just easier all the way around to have all the files in one directory.
What will happen by listing files by extention is people will search only in their chosen media type. If they prefer videos they will probably miss important info in pdf files.