[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author[>>]    [<<]Subject[>>]        Thread    

Number   :  1588
Date     :  2002-02-13
Author   :  Joseph Maddison
Subject  :  Re: copy failed, files deleted.
Size(KB) :  1


> Currently if xxcopying c:\stuff.txt to another location fails 
during the process, it will still delete the original in either case. 
Would it not be safer for xxcopy to keep the original file, make sure 
the transfer was succesful, and if it was, then erase the original. <

Say you have a 1 MB file on a floppy. Copying a newer version to the
floppy would never succeed because of size limitations while the old
file still exists. So, this could never be the default and might
not even be a good option, but let's explore this.

Perhaps there could be a switch which copies to a temp filename, then
deletes the target file, and then tries to rename the temp filename
over to the actual filename as you suggest. It could work, but it would
be subject to the limitation that if you do not have enough space for 
the temporary second copy, the copy fails.

... but if you have space to duplicate the backed up directory 
more than once, why not simply have more than one target backup 
directory, hard drive, etc. and alternate backing up between these two directories?

Joseph Maddison
Minneapolis, MN



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.