[<<]Message[>>] [<<]Author[>>] Subject[>>] [<<]Thread[>>]
Number : 1097 Date : 2001-12-02 Author : Dan Anderson Subject : Warning - Re: Question about /CLONE Size(KB) : 6
Warning (SFN not preserved) Mike, things may seem fine with your operating system, but Kan will tell you that you may have seriously undermined the integrity of your system by using /NX0 even though you won't encounter problems until sometime in the future, and would never be able to determine what has caused the problem. Sure the backup process runs through okay, but who wants an unreliable system ? Kan has given you an option that is a much better approach. The option, if the temporary internet explorer files are causing your problem, is to simply exclude those files when you run your backup routine. Kan, is there a feature that might be added that could identify specifically where (which directories) xxcopy is encountering an excessive number of failed attempts to preserve the SFN (short file names) ? Another option, referred to in a separate posting, is the use of an ancillary utility such as doslfnbk or to use GHOST, etc. ...Dan ================================= ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Lease To: Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:05 PM Subject: [xxcopy] Re: Question about /CLONE > Thanks very much; I followed your advice, and XXCOPY worked like a > champ! I'm now booting off the new drive, and everything seems great! > > -Mike > > > --- In xxcopy@y..., Kan Yabumoto wrote: > > > > Hi, all: > > > > When you run the XXCOPY /CLONE operation, you may encounter > > the following message: > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > XXCOPY detected an excessive number of failed > > attempts to preserve the short name in destination. > > An OS mismatch for the file system is suspected. > > You may disable the feature by adding the /NX0 switch. > > Do you wish to disable the /NX (default) feature now, > > to speed up the file copy operation immediately? > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > If you see the XXCOPY's window showing the cookie > > directory (C:\Windows\Cookies\...), then you say > > NO and continue. > > > > If you answer YES, XXCOPY will not spend time to > > preserve the short filename (SFN). The warning was > > originally designed to warn the user for possible > > mismatch in the volume type (NTFS vs FAT, or hard > > disk vs CD-ROM) where XXCOPY's attempt to preserve > > the SFN is futile. > > > > The message probably makes no sense to the great > > majority of users. We need to change the wording > > so that the first-time users won't be so confused. > > (Please post your suggestion for better wording.) > > > > This message is a result of the default /NX operation > > (which can be disabled by /NX0 at the beginning). > > It is caused by XXCOPY's effort in preserving the > > short filename (SFN) while a file is being copied > > using the full longname. The background info can be > > found at http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy03.htm. > > > > The warning message is typically encountered at the > > directory where the Internet Explorer keeps the cookie > > files (on behalf of Java web page action which saves > > small amount of information for future reference). > > > > If you examine your c:\Windows\Cookies\ directory, > > you will probably guess why XXCOPY gives you the > > warning. For example, I found the followings: > > > > long filename short filename > > -------------------------------------------- > > kan@s...[1].txt KAN@MI~1.TXT > > kan@s...[2].txt KAN@MI~2.TXT > > kan@s...[3].txt KAN@MI~3.TXT > > kan@s...[4].txt KAN@MI~4.TXT > > kan@s...[5].txt KAN@MI~5.TXT > > kan@s...[6].txt KAN@MI~6.TXT > > > > As you can see, these file names are different > > only near the end of the name which causes many > > SFN-collision when the SFNs are synthesized. In > > this case, there is nothing wrong with having > > similar names (and therefore many SFN collisions). > > > > Therefore, you can safely say NO to the warning and > > let XXCOPY finish the job the right (slower) way. > > > > What if you say YES to the prompt? > > > > XXCOPY will behave as if the /NX0 switch was there > > from that point (it runs faster). > > > > In general when you disable the SFN-preservation > > feature (by /NX0), it runs faster but you are > > taking some small risk that the newly synthesized > > SFN in the target directory may not match what > > it was in the source. Since many applications > > including the Windows OS itself reference files > > using the SFN, the mismatched SFN may cause serious > > problem (the severity varies from an unbootable > > system to lost data and hard to generalize). > > > > Usually, the cookies are never accessed by SFN, > > hence unpreserved SFN for cookies are harmless. > > > > On the other when you are copying a volume between > > a FAT volume and an NTFS, or between CD-ROM and > > a hard disk volume, a complete preservation of > > SFN is not possible due to the fact the SFN-synthesis > > algorithm used by the file system are incompatible > > one another --- in that case, you should choose > > /NX0 because it simply waste time without any > > benefit. > > > > Actually, XXCOPY can do better in guessing when > > to put the warning message. By just counting > > how many files has gone successfully and how > > many has failed (and especially now we know that > > the cookies files are the common occasion), > > we can suppress unnecessary warnings to eliminate > > the surprise and reduce the confusion of new > > users. > > > > To come to think of it, this is a classic case where > > correcting the program behavior takes much less time > > for us than to explain all this excuse over and over > > again.... > > > > > > Kan Yabumoto > > ========================================================= > > At 2001-11-30 09:28, you wrote: > > >Hello, > > > > > >I have just downloaded the XXCOPY program, and was using it last > > >night to clone my 10GB original disk to a 40GB Maxtor (actually > > >Quantum, under the hood) disk (MaxBlast, the partition/format/copy > > >utility which came with the disk, failed to do anything useful, to > > >make a VERY long story short). I got a message part of the way in > > >(maybe 10% or so of the copy?) saying that it had encountered many > > >failures involving short filenames (sorry, it was late, and I > forget > > >the exact message; it was rather long) and suggested that I run > > >XXCOPY with the /NX0 switch, and offered to implement it for the > rest > > >of the copy. Not understanding the issues involved, I declined and > > >aborted the copy for now; I didn't have time to continue, so I > > >disabled the new disk in the BIOS and left the system booting off > the > > >old one so the rest of the family could use it today while I'm at > > >work without doing anything to affect the new disk. What exactly > > >does this mean, and will it cause problems for transferring > > >everything over to the new disk and making it my boot drive? > > > > > >Thanks, > > >Mike > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive. The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.