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

Number   :  3511
Date     :  2003-01-13
Author   :  Kan Yabumoto
Subject  :  Re: Replace corrupt files in destination
Size(KB) :  3



Melissa:

Sorry for the delay of this answer. We felt the very funny
problem we had with the latest beta test version had all
the priority it needed. I believe the situation is now under
control.

==========

/BN // brandnew or newer if oldone exists
/BZL // brandnew or larger file if oldone exists

Now the above two switches look at the situation from
two different angles. Therefore, the question is
are you trying to combine the two condition by *AND*?
If that is the case, (to select a file that satisfies
both of the conditions), then you should use both of
the switches in one line and run it.

On the other hand, if you want to select files that
meet either of the two conditions (combine the two
conditions by "*OR*"), then, you need to create a
batch file with XXCOPY command with each of the two
switches in each of the two XXCOPY runs.

In nearly all cases, XXCOPY's file-selection switches
(except for the /IN switches) operates by elimination.
The more switches, more files will be eliminated because
less and less files meet all of the multi-dimensional
requirements.

Unlike the time value comparisons which provide plenty
of adjustments (offsets in both positive and negative
directions, and a range of tolerable error in value match),
the size comparison function has never combined with
similar idea of fuzziness.

Therefore, currently there is no operation like

"select the file if its file size is within 1000 of
its corresponding file in the destination"

On the other hand, you may specify a range of file
size in the absolute way,

"select files whose file size is between 32768 bytes
and 65536 bytes". /SZ:32768-65536 will do it".

--------------

Having said that, when a fuzziness in time-comparison
is treated as legitimate, a similar treatment on
size-comparison makes sense. The only reason why
it really did not occur to us was simply, the
need for such a function is very low. But, our experience
says that if one people want a feature, there is always
someone else who thinks in the same way. At this
moment, though, we would categorize it a special
feature for a custom-programming job.

Kan Yabumoto

003-01-06 09:44, you wrote:
>Kan, I am reposting this with the hope that you will see it.
>
>Date: Wed Dec 18, 2002 2:14 pm
>Subject: Replace corrupt files in destination
>
>Kan, We wish to request another switch, or two switches.
>
>We are not able to find a combination of switches to do the
>following:
>
>Copy a file from the source if it is brand new or if it is newer;
>copy a file from the source if it has the same name as a file in
>the destination, and, if it is larger than the destination file,
>copy it even if it is NOT newer.
>
>S new -> D
>
>S newer -> D older
>
>S larger,newer -> D smaller,older
>
>S larger,older -> D smaller,newer
>
>In addition, we wish to specify a plus-or-minus tolerance, in
>bytes, for HOW MUCH larger the file can be before it is copied
>up.
>
>Reasons:
>
>When a data file fails to copy correctly from a local to the
>server, it may leave a corrupt same-name file on the server with
>the date and time of the copy process, not of the source file. We
>want our scripts to replace the corrupt files automatically. The
>switches /BU/BN do not send the correct file to the server if a
>corrupt one is there. The switches /BU/BZL ignore newer data
>files if they have the same names and sizes as older files on the
>server.
>
>Because of differences between operating systems, a file on the
>local may differ from the same file on the server by as little as
>one byte; the file on the server is not corrupt.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Melissa Evans
>ASML Optics, LLC
>Richmond CA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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.