Re: Destination Exclusions Re-revisited [XARC 9388]



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

Number   :  9388
Date     :  2004-11-30
Author   :  des4212001
Subject  :  Re: Destination Exclusions Re-revisited
Size(KB) :  4



--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "Garry Deane"  wrote:
> 
> --- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "des4212001"  wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> You should not be using /zy! The idea of using 2 xxcopy
> commands is to carry out the action of /clone (which is
> based on /bi/zy) into 2 separate processes; a copy from
> the source and; a deletion on the destination. However
> to use exclusions for the deletion part, you must make
> the deletion target the source. Since you want to use
> /bz instead of /bi, just add that as an override to the
> /bu switch.
> 
> :: Step 1. Carry out the copy part. This copies brand new
> :: or different size files to PC2 (except those excluded).
> xxcopy PC1\ PC2\ /bu/bz/ex:PC1-DontCopy.txt
> 
> :: Step 2. Carry out the deletion part. This deletes
> :: "orphans" on PC2 (except those excluded)
> xxcopy PC2\ PC1\ /rsy/bb/pd0/s/h/r/ex:PC2-DontDel.txt
> 
> Because you want to synchronise the two PCs, repeat the
> above in the reverse direction.
> 
> :: Step 3. Carry out the copy part. This copies "orphans"
> :: on PC2 which were excluded from being deleted in the
> :: previous step (except those now excluded). Note that
> :: there won't be any different size files since Step 1
> :: has already overwritten these (except those in
> :: PC1-DontCopy.txt).
> xxcopy PC2\ PC1\ /bu/bz/ex:PC2-DontCopy.txt.txt
> 
> :: Step 4. Carry out the deletion part. This deletes
> :: "orphans" on PC1 (except those excluded)
> xxcopy PC1\ PC2\ /rsy/bb/pd0/s/h/r/ex:PC1-DontDel.txt
> 
> Although I've used 4 exclusion files above, this is just
> for clarity and may not be necessary. Because the
> exclusions are only applied to the source directory, you
> can have exclusions for both the source and the dest in
> the same exclusion file. Only the exclusions that match
> the source will be used. It depends on how complex
> your exclusions are.
> 
> Note that the order that the above commands are carried
> out is important. The first /bu/bz command dictates which
> PC is the "master". This PC is the one that has the
> "correct" copy of a file if the file sizes are different.
> Also, whether you carry out the deletion first then the
> backup or the other way round can affect the way empty
> directories are preserved. If you want to mirror empty
> directories, carry out the delete first then the backup.
> If you want delete empty directories, add /e0 to the /bu
> command and you can carry out either command first.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> You're right. Synchronisation is a particularly tricky
> operation and you're probably better off using a specific
> program for that task. Specialist synchronisation programs
> can make more intelligent "rules" based decisions on things
> such as both versions of a file being modified independently.
> These programs catalogue the files and can sensibly compare
> the 2 different sets of contents.
> 
> Garry

I'll, ah, study this today and see if I can grasp the full content! 
At the moment a point (or 2?) must elude me.

One further adder. Synchronize may be too strong a word. I'm trying 
to do a partial synchronization if you like. Some paths exactly, 
some not. Some orphans to be transfered, one way generally, some not 
as those are unique to the particular installation (the excludes). 
Without breaking all of say My Documents down into individual paths. 
(Or creating a huge chain of executions.)

FolderMatch is an app that can define these details nicely, but 
can't do the multiple layer batching. (So far I know of nothing that 
combines all the aspects.)

Anyway, the concept of destination exclusions seem to fill the gap 
perfectly. (But then for the life of me I can't reason why an 
Include list would be nice as John suggested a way back, as 
everything is included by default?) Then I don't see the problems 
destination exclusions would inflict on other switches either.

DES



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