win 7 question about folders and videos

[thewiz]

I have a folder with about 200 videos and was wondering how many I can put
in a folder before it would slow down or not work.
Is there a limit on the number of videos or JPG's for that matter in one
folder?
Thanks for any help.

 

[Tim Slattery]

I have a folder with about 200 videos and was wondering how many I can put
in a folder before it would slow down or not work.
Is there a limit on the number of videos or JPG's for that matter in one
folder?

The file systems don't care what kind of file they're working with,
only that they are files. FAT32 had a limit of about 65,000 entries in
a directory. Files with long names used up to 13 entries, so you could
fill a directory before you knew it. NTFS doesn't have a per-directory
limit and the length of the name makes no difference, but an NTFS file
system is limited to 2**32 -1 files (4,294,967,295).

Putting lots of files in a FAT directory would slow down searching for
a particular file. NTFS does things differently, and is very little
affected by this.

See here for details: http://technet.microsoft.com/library/Cc938432

 

[Ed Cryer]

I have a folder with about 200 videos and was wondering how many I can put
in a folder before it would slow down or not work.
Is there a limit on the number of videos or JPG's for that matter in one
folder?
Thanks for any help.

Good question.

I have a folder that's currently 50+ GB containing videos. When I go
into it with WinExplorer it displays almost immediately, but then starts
displaying icons quite slowly, one at a time. If I click close before
it's finished all the icons and then go in again, all the icons already
cached display immediately, then it picks up where it left of.
Go in again, and all are displayed immediately.

I guess if you had View set to no icons, then it would be prontissimo
every time.

Have you hit any kind of suggestion that there's a limit?

Ed

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

Good question.

I have a folder that's currently 50+ GB containing videos. When I go

More precisely, you have a folder with filename entries that
point to 50+ GB of videos. The videos are not actually in the folder.
They are accessed through it. This is like a chain of keys does not
contain the locks the keys are used on.

If each of the files were twice the size or one-half the size, it
would make very little, if any, difference to the time to scan a
folder for a filename entry.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

I have a folder that's currently 50+ GB containing videos. When I go

Regardless of any actual limits on numbers or size, I tend to subdivide
folders when I get lots of files in them - I find it easier to find my
way around. But that's just me: I wouldn't try to impose my habits on
others.

More precisely, you have a folder with filename entries that
point to 50+ GB of videos. The videos are not actually in the folder.
They are accessed through it. This is like a chain of keys does not
contain the locks the keys are used on.

If each of the files were twice the size or one-half the size, it
would make very little, if any, difference to the time to scan a
folder for a filename entry.

[]
True, but (as is the default in many cases) if it tries to display an
icon (thumbnail) for each file based on something in the file, and thus
has to open them to get that information, it _does_ affect the time to
_display_ the folder. (Which can slow the computer as Explorer tends to
have medium to high priority.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

TV and radio presenters are just like many people, except they tend to wear
make-up all the time. Especially the radio presenters. - Eddie Mair, in Radio
Times 25-31 August 2012

 

[Ed Cryer]

[]

I have a folder that's currently 50+ GB containing videos. When I go

Regardless of any actual limits on numbers or size, I tend to subdivide
folders when I get lots of files in them - I find it easier to find my
way around. But that's just me: I wouldn't try to impose my habits on
others.

More precisely, you have a folder with filename entries that
point to 50+ GB of videos. The videos are not actually in the folder.
They are accessed through it. This is like a chain of keys does not
contain the locks the keys are used on.

If each of the files were twice the size or one-half the size, it
would make very little, if any, difference to the time to scan a
folder for a filename entry.

[]
True, but (as is the default in many cases) if it tries to display an
icon (thumbnail) for each file based on something in the file, and thus
has to open them to get that information, it _does_ affect the time to
_display_ the folder. (Which can slow the computer as Explorer tends to
have medium to high priority.)

If Windows acts in a rational manner (that followed by most database
designers), it will get most details from the indexes alone.
In the scenario I outlined above the icons have to be taken from the
actual files headers, and that's where the slowness occurs. But that
won't happen if you choose a view without icons.

Ed

 

[Char Jackson]

Regardless of any actual limits on numbers or size, I tend to subdivide
folders when I get lots of files in them - I find it easier to find my
way around. But that's just me: I wouldn't try to impose my habits on
others.

Once, in the midst of a project I was working on, I had just under
170,000 jpg's in a single folder. I mostly used Windows Explorer's
built-in search routines in order to work on subsets of the data. It
worked pretty good, and I'd say better than it worked under XP and
earlier.

 

[thewiz]

Thank you one and all. If I read the replys correctly my paltry number of
vids in one file will not overtax Windows.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

In message <[email protected]>, Gene Wirchenko
[snip]

If each of the files were twice the size or one-half the size, it
would make very little, if any, difference to the time to scan a
folder for a filename entry.

[]
True, but (as is the default in many cases) if it tries to display an
icon (thumbnail) for each file based on something in the file, and thus
has to open them to get that information, it _does_ affect the time to
_display_ the folder. (Which can slow the computer as Explorer tends to
have medium to high priority.)

Ah, right. I tend to go through the CLI, and I do not have large
image collections. Sorry for the blindside.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko