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

Number   :  9373
Date     :  2004-11-25
Author   :  des4212001
Subject  :  Re: Destination Exclusions?
Size(KB) :  2



--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "Garry Deane"  wrote:
> 
> --- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "des4212001"  wrote:
> > 
> > Exclusions obviously apply to the source. But consider
> > syncronizing across machines. Where the Destination is both
> > Remote and a different flavor of Windows. There are places
> > where /ZY (deleting destination orphans) can be applied and
> > places where it's not practical because of system structural
> > differences. Destination Exclusions (at least where the
> > Destination is Remote) simply don't work. And breaking the
> > job down far enough to isolate a few files and folders on
> > the destination also gets out of hand quickly. I suppose
> > the only solution is 2 passes, swapping the source & 
> > destination? But then this is right at the slowest point,
> > the network. (All to catch that 1 redundant file!)
> > 
> > Any ideas? DES
> 
> Do I read into this an implied request to allow destination
> exclusions? Some time ago, a similar discussion took place
> and strong argument was put forward as to why this was not
> necessarily desirable. The thread started here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xxcopy/message/4693
> 
> Generally speaking, there are 2 ways to deal with destination
> exclusions. The first is as you suggest and carries out
> 2 xxcopy commands. The first xxcopy command deletes extra
> files on the destination by using /bb and swapping the source
> and destination order. The second xxcopy command then copies
> new and updated files from the src to the dst in the normal
> way using say /backup (no deletions). These commands can use
> a single exclusion file which can list source, dest and common
> exclusions.
> 
> The other method is to create dummy empty files and/or
> directories in the source that match the names of the files/
> directories in the destination that are to be excluded.
> These source files are then excluded from the /clone or
> similar operation which has the same effect as excluding
> them in the destination.
> 
> Garry

Ouch! (I followed your thread there.) I'm just too simple minded to 
see all\any "problems" created by allowing destination exclusions. 
(And apparently Kan even agreed there?) Granted however that 
Sycronization is a different can of worms than file managemnet. I've 
already made many consessions to directory structure between 
machines to simplify comparison. Adding a few dummy objects wouldn't 
be a big deal... but just isn't clean. Anyway, I like the concept of 
Orphans (from FolderMatch). Then all that's necesary is to deal with 
them bi-directionally. "Clone" (/ZY) only address 1 of the 4 
possibilities.

Thanks: DES



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