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

Number   :  9385
Date     :  2004-11-29
Author   :  des4212001
Subject  :  Re: Destination Exclusions Re-revisited
Size(KB) :  4



--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "John Zeman"  wrote:
> 
> --- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "des4212001"  wrote:
> > 
> > Swapping the source & destination in 2 passes won't work. There 
are 
> > some orphans in each location unique to each installation. And 
there 
> > are identical paths containing some unique objects on each side, 
> > again depending on installation. This is something that sounds 
good 
> > until you try it!
> > 
> > Duplicating each location's orphans into their respective 
> > destinations is unacceptable to me. I'd rather miss deleting a 
> > destination object that doesn't exist in the source 
occationally. I 
> > mean, we are talking 1 item out of thousands, and then only very 
> > occasionally. But this then become a manual operation to keep up 
> > with.
> > 
> > It probably would be possible to peal each location down into a 
> > dozen invocations of xxcopy, twice now by having to reverse the 
> > sources & destinations thereby isolating each orphan occurance. 
But 
> > this would generate a monster kludge and present a real 
maintenance 
> > headache.
> > 
> > To reiterate, I find the inability to simply specify an 
exclusion in 
> > the destination a failing. And most espically in light of the 
most 
> > comprehensive (polite for far out!) file management 
capabilities. It 
> > just jumps out at me as a natural thing.
> > 
> > DES
> 
> 
> I know I must be missing something here. Why doesn't this general 
concept work for you?
> 
> Xxcopy computer1 computer2 /EX"Exclusions.txt"
> 
> Where the exclusion file contains a list of orphans on computer1 
that you do not want copied to computer2.
> 
> Followed by a second xxcopy run of 
> 
> Xxcopy computer2 computer1 /BB/RSY /EX"Exclusions.txt"
> 
> Where the orphans on computer2 would be deleted except for the 
orphans listed in the exclusion file. What is not being done by 
this? Granted the above is only doing this one way, to do it both 
ways would require a total of 4 xxcopy lines.
> 
> Xxcopy computer1 computer2 /EX"Copy Exclusions.txt"
> Xxcopy computer2 computer1 /BB/RSY /EX"Deletion Exclusions.txt"
> 
> Xxcopy computer2 computer1 /EX"Copy Exclusions.txt"
> Xxcopy computer1 computer2 /BB/RSY /EX"Deletion Exclusions.txt"
> 
> Of course other options would likely need to be added to the above 
options (to only copy newer files, to process subdirectories, hidden 
files etc). Are you saying the orphans move around? That they are 
not always in the same place? If so, how would a computer2 
exclusion option for /ZY help you then when things keep changing?
> 
> Kan would need to confirm this, but I believe it is by deliberate 
design that with the exception of certain options to qualify the 
destination, the xxcopy options are limited to the source. Each 
option must be tested against every other combination of options, 
and with approximately 250 xxcopy options available now, I can 
visualize a virtual nightmare scenario if the options applied to the 
destination as well as the source.
> 
> On the other hand, I can certainly see the value of an option to 
exclude certain specified files from deletion when the /Z or /ZY 
switches are used. Along the same lines but on a different topic, 
it also would be nice to see an inclusion file option for xxcopy.
> 
> Maybe some day those options will be available to us, after all 
the product is still being developed. Until then
> I just use whatever workarounds I need to use to accomplish the 
task at hand.
> 
> John

I had to actually try it to see this. I'm primarily using /BZ 
(different in size & new). Then in a trial second pass reversed the 
source & destination and /ZY was added in an attempt to delete files 
in the original destination that no longer exist in the original 
source. When the source & destination are reversed as in your 
example above then the exclusions made on the first pass are now 
available for deletion in the second pass. There's no way to get the 
effects of /ZY except for some specific orphans. I want to apply 
the /ZY in general, but not overall, without breaking a source down 
into many paths. Clearer?

I want this and I want that! But seriously, synchronization is a 
real can of worms compared to a "simple" incremental backup. I'm 
also dealing with 2 different file systems (which you helped me with 
previously) on 2 different machines that can be operated 
independantly. So time stamp comparisions are almost out of the 
question unless you want to be copying tons of stuff that really 
doesn't need to be transferred.

And of all things, I have 2 files that simply don't pay any 
attention to the rules of xxcopy, that I've kind of learned to live 
with. 

DES



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