Kan,

<<  I suspect ..\DIVERS\..  should probably be ..\DRIVERS\..  >>

You don't speak French then!  "Divers" means miscellaneous, so
EMPLOI\SALARIE\DIVERS might translate as something like EMPLOYMENT\SALARIED\MISC

   Chris

Hi all

I move files from our main data repository to a USB connected hard drive
using a ".bat" file and a scheduler with the command "XXCOPY G:\DATA\ M:\
/S /Y /DA"

Does the panel have any comments on the switches and the syntax?

With best wishes

Andy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kan/Chris

Thank you first for your answers.

Yes, I had a typo into my append; actually, I copy from a H: disk to
a C: disk.

Yes DIVERS in French means, as Chris pointed it, Various.

Basically, what I am trying to accomplish is to copy the whole \Fran\
directory to the slight exception of the \Fran\...\ subdirectories I
mentionned.

Along with your answer, Kan, I just did a test tonight which showed:
- no exclusion item list line
- the "excluded" files were indeed copied

All in all, exclusion, as I coded it, does not work.

My initial question remains: how should I code exclusion to
accomplish what I intend to?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

F





--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, Kan Yabumoto <tech@...> wrote:
>
>
> Frchausson  wrote:
>  >
>  > Hello
>  >
>  > During a classical XXCOPY copy operation, I need to exclude
>  > part of the source directories content.
>  >
>  > I go with this exclusion statement:
>  >
>  > /XC:\Fran\EMPLOI\SALARIE\DIVERS\ZZZ\doc\*\*.*
>  >
>  > knowing that the copy operation is upon the full C:\Fran\
>  > directory.
>  >
>  > My trouble is that the files contained into the \ZZZ\doc\
>  > subset directories are indeed copied to the target destination.
>  >
>  > Here is the complete XXCOPY statement:
>  >
>  > xxcopy C:\Fran\*.*  C:\Fran\  /s/YY/BI/ZY
> /FF  /oNC:\fran\eCHanges\Miroir\franlog.txt /oF2 /q3
> /XC:\Fran\EMPLOI\SALARIE\DIVERS\ZZZ\doc\*\*.*
>  >
>  > would this matter.
>  >
>  > Thank you in advance for your kind help
>
> I'm sure something is wrong with the command line that was
> shown here.  The source and the destination directory are
> identical and XXCOPY will refuse to go any further.
>
>
> The original command should be cleaner (and more
> accurate) with
>
>
>    xxcopy
> c:\Fran\
X:\Fran\  /S/BI/ZY/FF/OF2/Q3/X:EMPLOI\SALARIE\DIVERS\ZZZ\DOC\
>
> (a few switches are omitted).
>
> My guess of why it's not working as desired is due
> to carelessness (typing and/or reading).
>
> I suspect ..\DIVERS\..  should probably be ..\DRIVERS\..
>
> ========
>
> There is a way to debug an exclusion related situation.
>
> Add /oX/debug switch to the command line and run it.
>
> The /DEBUG switch will confirm what operating parameters
> are in effect.  With the /oX switch, it will list the
> current "exclusion list" that is in force.
>
> You should see lines like this.
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------
>      Exclusion Items List
>       C    1:  C:\Fran\EMPLOI\SALARIE\DIVERS\ZZZ\doc\
>     --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> If you don't see it, the exclusion specifier you entered
> was purged during the pre-processing phase.  In order
> to run the XXCOPY operation efficiently, XXCOPY massages
> at the beginning the exclusion specifiers and discards any
> exclusion item that does not apply to the current operation
> (e.g., when you specify a non-existing directory,
> it will be purged for sure).
>
>
> Since the command line had another critical
> typo (the identical source/destination directories),
> I'm not sure if this was also a typo in this posting
> (not in the actual command).  In either case, my hunch
> is on sloppy typing (that is exactly why I suggest
> not to use /YY).
>
>
>
> Kan Yabumoto
>

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "frchausson" <frchausson@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I had a typo into my append; actually, I copy from a H: disk to
> a C: disk.
>
>
> All in all, exclusion, as I coded it, does not work.
>
> My initial question remains: how should I code exclusion to
> accomplish what I intend to?
>


If your source drive is H: an exclusion specifying a file on drive C: will not
work.

Also you could drop the end *\*.* from your exclusion as it is redundant.

See if this one works:

/XH:\Fran\EMPLOI\SALARIE\DIVERS\ZZZ\doc\

(Note drive H: is used instead of drive C:)

John

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, andy.cawdell@... wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I move files from our main data repository to a USB connected hard drive
> using a ".bat" file and a scheduler with the command "XXCOPY G:\DATA\ M:\
> /S /Y /DA"
>
> Does the panel have any comments on the switches and the syntax?
>
> With best wishes
>
> Andy


Given your command line I assume you meant you copy files from your main data
repository to a USB connected hard drive instead of moving them.  For there's
nothing in your command line to copy then delete which in effect is a move
operation.

Here is what your command line will do and not do:
1. It will not copy any system or hidden files.
2. It will not overwrite any read only files.
3. It will copy brand new files and any files that have a newer timestamp than
the corresponding files on the destination.


If this meets your goal, then you're good to go.  If not, you might consider
using /BU instead of the options /S/Y/DA.  From a prompt, type

XXCOPY /BU /?

And press ENTER to see the options included within the shortcut option /BU.

Also, I would run the above command line a few times without the scheduler to
make sure xxcopy does not stop the script to prompt you about something.  If it
does, read the prompt to understand what it's asking you, then press ? to learn
how to suppress that prompt in the future.  When you have the prompts
suppressed, then put the script back into the scheduler.

John

Since my primary computer for the past three years has been a laptop, xxclone
really didn't fit into my scheme of backup boot security very well.

However things are changing on my end now.  I'll still be using my laptop, but
only for my portable needs.  Tomorrow I should take delivery of a new power
desktop with two internal hard drives.  Many of the newer power machines are
coming out now with multiple internal hard drives, and to me it seems this might
be opening some rather promising new doors for xxclone (at least for me).

So in a few days once I have my new machine loaded and ready to go, I will be
downloading xxclone and running it through its paces.

I'll be in touch soon Kan.

John



--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, Kan Yabumoto <tech@...> wrote:
>
>
> This is for XXCLONE users.
>
> In the last few releases of XXCLONE beta versions, we saw
> a depressingly low number of downloads --- after the
> distribution of complimentary XXCLONE-Pro package to
> quite a few users.
>
> The reason why we did not make the beta versions the
> official release version was that we did not feel we had
> sufficiently large number of users who tested the beta
> test versions.
>
> I'm hoping the new version posted at the betatest directory
> will be more enthusiastically accessed:
>
>       http://www.xxclone.com/betatest  (for v.0.51.2)
>
>
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>    Ordinarily, we want to post only XXCOPY-related messages
>    in this discussion group.   XXCLONE-related topics should
>    be posted in the XXCLONE forum
>
>        http://groups-beta.google.com/group/xxclone
>
>    But, I suspect that many XXCLONE users are still in this
>    discussion group and not subscribing the XXCLONE forum.
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> In this version, the creation of the BOOT.INI file is improved.
>
> But, for those who have not tried the previous version
> (v.0.51.1), the last release was quite significant in the
> performance improvement.  The two-pass incremental backup
> scheme was replaced by a new one-pass method (like XXCOPY)
> and became much faster than the previous versions.
> If you haven't tested it, it's definitely worth a try.
>
>
> Let me explain how the BOOT.INI file is saved at different places.
>
> In the Advanced Settings page, you may create a BOOT.INI file
> by the following buttons:
>
>    "Make QBD"         // save BOOT.INI in the floppy disk
>    "Add Test Boot"    // save BOOT.INI in the source volume
>
>    Note: when you check the [v] Write BOOT.INI button in the
>          Boot Control section (e.g., /BC1), it saves BOOT.INI
>          in the target volume (for self-bootability).
>
> In all of these cases, the entry added into the boot menu
> will be for booting into the target volume.   The different
> methods presented here are where to place the BOOT.INI file.
>
> The first two cases are used to create/modify the BOOT.INI file
> in order to boot into the target volume (usually for testing
> the bootability of the target).
>
> The safest way to test the bootability is to use the floppy
> disk (using the Quick Boot Diskette) since it does not involve
> any change in the source volume which is usually responsible
> for the boot process.  Remember we have a paranoia for
> XXCLONE inadvertently making a healthy Windows system
> non-bootable albeit this scenario is very unlikely.
>
> The Add TestBoot function adds a new entry in the boot
> menu (usually in the BOOT.INI file on the source volume)
> that will allow you to boot from the target volume.
> This is the most versatile one of the three variations.
> You can select any (source) volume for the location of
> the BOOT.INI file and any (target) volume for the parameters
> for the boot menu entry.  Of course, it is silly to create
> a BOOT.INI file on a purely data volume (but possible).
>
> These two methods are distinct from the function previously
> available via the /BC (boot-control) feature that is
> responsible in adding the boot menu entry in the BOOT.INI
> file on the target volume.
>
> I think we need to clarify this distinction in a technical
> bulletin.
>
> ============
>
> When we started this project, XXCLONE offered a very limited
> choice on how the BOOT.INI file was modified.  As a matter
> of fact, we believe the BOOT.INI file is the most troublesome
> aspect of the cloning operations.  Due to a surprising
> variation in the BOOT.INI file, the treatment of the file
> has been the most challenging part of this project.  On the
> surface, it seems quite trivial to edit the BOOT.INI file.
> Indeed it is relatively easy for those who know how to
> manually edit the BOOT.INI file.  There are plenty of
> web resource available on this subject.
>
>    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/289022
>
> I guess for computer novices, the BOOT.INI contents look too
> scary to touch.
>
>
> Kan Yabumoto
>

Thanks John ..........

Yes -  copy not move - and thanks for the hint about testing - this is my
usual practice

I've looked at /BU as you say my syntax avoids hidden and read only files
- and think I will use  /BU  - I do not want older files  and KS and other
defaults are  fine - so I presume I replace "/S /Y /DA" with "/BN"

One further issue is that I might want to delete files on the target that
are no longer in the source copy - would "/BN /RC" achieve this?

bw

Andy

>> I move files from our main data repository to a USB connected hard
drive
>> using a ".bat" file and a scheduler with the command "XXCOPY G:\DATA\
M:\
>> /S /Y /DA"

>Given your command line I assume you meant you copy files from your main
data repository to a USB connected hard drive instead of moving them.  For
>there's nothing in your command line to copy then delete which in effect
is a move operation.

>Here is what your command line will do and not do:
>1. It will not copy any system or hidden files.
>2. It will not overwrite any read only files.
>3. It will copy brand new files and any files that have a newer timestamp
than the corresponding files on the destination.
>If this meets your goal, then you're good to go.  If not, you might
consider using /BU instead of the options /S/Y/DA.  From a prompt, type
>XXCOPY /BU /?
>And press ENTER to see the options included within the shortcut option
/BU.
>Also, I would run the above command line a few times without the
scheduler to make sure xxcopy does not stop the script to prompt you about
>something.  If it does, read the prompt to understand what it's asking
you, then press ? to learn how to suppress that prompt in the future. When
>you have the prompts suppressed, then put the script back into the
scheduler.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John

You are absolutely right, exclusion deals with the source drive. I
just tested your solution, which works perfectly.

You know what good ideas are like? someting one should have thought
at the first place.

Thank you sincerely for your help.

F

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "John Zeman" <john041650@...> wrote:
>
> --- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "frchausson" <frchausson@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I had a typo into my append; actually, I copy from a H: disk
to
> > a C: disk.
> >
> >
> > All in all, exclusion, as I coded it, does not work.
> >
> > My initial question remains: how should I code exclusion to
> > accomplish what I intend to?
> >
>
>
> If your source drive is H: an exclusion specifying a file on drive
C: will not work.
>
> Also you could drop the end *\*.* from your exclusion as it is
redundant.
>
> See if this one works:
>
> /XH:\Fran\EMPLOI\SALARIE\DIVERS\ZZZ\doc\
>
> (Note drive H: is used instead of drive C:)
>
> John
>

Windows XP
Can someone please help me in using the "QBL" switch. I want to copy
Directories and Files with a maximum byte count but don't understand
the syntax - how do I specify the byte count limit?

Thanks Ed

Ed wrote:
  >
  > Windows XP
  >
  > Can someone please help me in using the "QBL" switch.
  > I want to copy  Directories and Files with a maximum byte
  > count but don't understand the syntax - how do I specify
  > the byte count limit?
  >
  > Thanks Ed

As a general rule, if you specify a command with /?, you get
a focused help text that shows related switches whose
descriptions give you a little more idea what the switch is
all about.

    xxcopy /qbl /?

Like many other switches, /QBL expects one parameter with it
(append the numeric value immediately, or with a colon that
improves the readability).

The number is the combined byte count of the job.
You may use the following suffix to make the command
more readable:

       K    // 1000
       M    // 1000000
       G    // 1000000000

Note: these suffixes are used with a few other switches
(---- these are in the metric convention, not the binary
stuff Microsoft tends to prefer).

E.g.,

   xxcopy  \src\  \dst\  /QBL:10000   // limit = 10000 bytes
   xxcopy  \src\  \dst\  /QBL:10K     // same as above
   xxcopy  \src\  \dst\  /QBL10K      // same as above
   xxcopy  \src\  \dst\  /QBL0        // the QBL switch disabled
   xxcopy  \src\  \dst\  /QBL:0       // same as above


There are two variations in the /QB operations.

    /QBT    // the parameter is the trigger point for quitting
    /QBL    // the parameter is the upper limit of the operation

That is, with /QBT:1M,  the operation ends when the trigger
value is reached or crossed.  The operation continues until
at least 1000000 bytes are copied (the total bytes will be
equal or greater than the specified byte count).

Whereas, With /QBL:1M, the parameter is the upper limit with
the operation.  The operation ends when the limit is reached
or would be surpassed.  This switch guarantees that the
total byte count of the operation will not exceed the limit.
As soon as the condition is satisfied, the command quits.

Then, there are /QST and /QSL which are tied to the
remaining space in the destination volume rather than the
total byte count that has been processed.

The excellent XXCOPY.CHM file prepared by John Zeman should
give you concise, yet very helpful description of what
I just wrote.

    http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy.chm

save this file somewhere on your computer and make its
shortcut icon handy on your Desktop.

Kan Yabumoto

John Zeman  wrote:

<snip>

  > Many of the newer power machines are coming out now with
  > multiple internal hard drives, and to me it seems this might
  > be opening some rather promising new doors for xxclone (at
  > least for me).
  >
  > So in a few days once I have my new machine loaded and ready
  > to go, I will be downloading xxclone and running it through
  > its paces.
  >
  > I'll be in touch soon Kan.

Speaking of a new computer...

For the first time in four years, I'm about to build a new
computer.  Not that my current computer is too slow for my
needs.  The new machine will allow us to test our products
on the 64-bit Windows (as well as testing in the Windows
Vista environments).

For anyone interested in our "dream-machine", here's the
bill of material:

   Motherboard  Asus A8N32-SLI (nForce4 chipset)    $220
   CPU          Athlon 64 3200+  939-pin            $156
   Memory       Kingston  DDR400 ECC  2GB           $194
   Disk         WD3200JB  320GB SATA 7200rpm/8mb    $130
   DVD          NEC ND-3550A DVD+/-RW Double layer  $ 45
   Video        Nvidia 6200TC 128Mb PCI Exp16 DVI   $ 42
   Case         Raidmax Diamond PC Case PS/350W     $ 50
   Disk Tray    Mobile Racks (2 IDE, 1 SATA)        $ 45


In addition, we will add another video card (for dual-
monitor) and two more disks from existing machines.

It's not quite a high-performance gamer's machine.
Just a programmer's practical computer with lots of memory
and abundant pixels on the screens (1600 x 1200 x 2).

I remember that building a new computer used to be a lot
of fun.  Somehow, much of the excitement is gone.
I guess one of the reasons is that the new machine will
probably be only marginally faster than (probably less
than twice as fast as) the one that was built 4 years ago.

  From software side, there will be more changes though.
The 64-bit programming environment will be interesting
(it will be a real drag to write down a 64-bit value
in hex with 16 characters).  On the other hand, we may
have to give up legacy 16-bit programs.  That will be
a serious problem for me since I'm still using a DOS
based text editor.  I guess I will finally have to learn
Emacs :-(

Kan Yabumoto

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, Kan Yabumoto <tech@...> wrote:
>
> Ed wrote:
> >
> > Windows XP
> >
> > Can someone please help me in using the "QBL" switch.
> > I want to copy Directories and Files with a maximum byte
> > count but don't understand the syntax - how do I specify
> > the byte count limit?
> >
> > Thanks Ed
>
> As a general rule, if you specify a command with /?, you get
> a focused help text that shows related switches whose
> descriptions give you a little more idea what the switch is
> all about.
>
> xxcopy /qbl /?
>
> Like many other switches, /QBL expects one parameter with it
> (append the numeric value immediately, or with a colon that
> improves the readability).
>
> The number is the combined byte count of the job.
> You may use the following suffix to make the command
> more readable:
>
> K // 1000
> M // 1000000
> G // 1000000000
>
> Note: these suffixes are used with a few other switches
> (---- these are in the metric convention, not the binary
> stuff Microsoft tends to prefer).
>
> E.g.,
>
> xxcopy \src\ \dst\ /QBL:10000 // limit = 10000 bytes
> xxcopy \src\ \dst\ /QBL:10K // same as above
> xxcopy \src\ \dst\ /QBL10K // same as above
> xxcopy \src\ \dst\ /QBL0 // the QBL switch disabled
> xxcopy \src\ \dst\ /QBL:0 // same as above
>
>
> There are two variations in the /QB operations.
>
> /QBT // the parameter is the trigger point for quitting
> /QBL // the parameter is the upper limit of the operation
>
> That is, with /QBT:1M, the operation ends when the trigger
> value is reached or crossed. The operation continues until
> at least 1000000 bytes are copied (the total bytes will be
> equal or greater than the specified byte count).
>
> Whereas, With /QBL:1M, the parameter is the upper limit with
> the operation. The operation ends when the limit is reached
> or would be surpassed. This switch guarantees that the
> total byte count of the operation will not exceed the limit.
> As soon as the condition is satisfied, the command quits.
>
> Then, there are /QST and /QSL which are tied to the
> remaining space in the destination volume rather than the
> total byte count that has been processed.
>
> The excellent XXCOPY.CHM file prepared by John Zeman should
> give you concise, yet very helpful description of what
> I just wrote.
>
> http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy.chm
>
> save this file somewhere on your computer and make its
> shortcut icon handy on your Desktop.
>
> Kan Yabumoto
>


Thanks very much Ken for your very complete response to my query. I've
copied it and saved in my "Post" directory.

Ed

At 3/02/2006 13:28, Kan Yabumoto wrote:

>John Zeman  wrote:
>
><snip>
>
> > Many of the newer power machines are coming out now with
> > multiple internal hard drives, and to me it seems this might
> > be opening some rather promising new doors for xxclone (at
> > least for me).
> >
> > So in a few days once I have my new machine loaded and ready
> > to go, I will be downloading xxclone and running it through
> > its paces.
> >
> > I'll be in touch soon Kan.
>
>Speaking of a new computer...
>
>For the first time in four years, I'm about to build a new
>computer.  Not that my current computer is too slow for my
>needs.  The new machine will allow us to test our products
>on the 64-bit Windows (as well as testing in the Windows
>Vista environments).
>
>For anyone interested in our "dream-machine", here's the
>bill of material:
>
>   Motherboard  Asus A8N32-SLI (nForce4 chipset)    $220
>   CPU          Athlon 64 3200+  939-pin            $156
>   Memory       Kingston  DDR400 ECC  2GB           $194
>   Disk         WD3200JB  320GB SATA 7200rpm/8mb    $130
>   DVD          NEC ND-3550A DVD+/-RW Double layer  $ 45
>   Video        Nvidia 6200TC 128Mb PCI Exp16 DVI   $ 42
>   Case         Raidmax Diamond PC Case PS/350W     $ 50
>   Disk Tray    Mobile Racks (2 IDE, 1 SATA)        $ 45
>
>
>In addition, we will add another video card (for dual-
>monitor) and two more disks from existing machines.
>
>It's not quite a high-performance gamer's machine.
>Just a programmer's practical computer with lots of memory
>and abundant pixels on the screens (1600 x 1200 x 2).
>
>I remember that building a new computer used to be a lot
>of fun.  Somehow, much of the excitement is gone.
>I guess one of the reasons is that the new machine will
>probably be only marginally faster than (probably less
>than twice as fast as) the one that was built 4 years ago.

What about the noise ? I'm going to build a new PC my self too,
quiet will be my first concern...


> From software side, there will be more changes though.
>The 64-bit programming environment will be interesting
>(it will be a real drag to write down a 64-bit value
>in hex with 16 characters).  On the other hand, we may
>have to give up legacy 16-bit programs.  That will be
>a serious problem for me since I'm still using a DOS
>based text editor.  I guess I will finally have to learn
>Emacs :-(

Emacs is not that bad! (have to say my first editor was emacs)

Francis


>Kan Yabumoto
>
>
>
>SPONSORED LINKS
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Remote+backup+software&w1=Remote+backup+so\
ftware&w2=Network+backup+software&w3=Server+backup+software&w4=Offsite+backup+so\
ftware&w5=Backup+software&w6=System+backup+software&c=6&s=163&.sig=s1avRsgiAe2jq\
cKR2Yp2aw>Remote
>backup software
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Network+backup+software&w1=Remote+backup+s\
oftware&w2=Network+backup+software&w3=Server+backup+software&w4=Offsite+backup+s\
oftware&w5=Backup+software&w6=System+backup+software&c=6&s=163&.sig=Rf3Jq-REWNgl\
fCaGAVEHLg>Network
>backup software
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Server+backup+software&w1=Remote+backup+so\
ftware&w2=Network+backup+software&w3=Server+backup+software&w4=Offsite+backup+so\
ftware&w5=Backup+software&w6=System+backup+software&c=6&s=163&.sig=DZxZ3JzDKlojU\
RFekytkow>Server
>backup software
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Offsite+backup+software&w1=Remote+backup+s\
oftware&w2=Network+backup+software&w3=Server+backup+software&w4=Offsite+backup+s\
oftware&w5=Backup+software&w6=System+backup+software&c=6&s=163&.sig=RYNNcB3Icz_-\
yBK3bttzlw>Offsite
>backup software
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Backup+software&w1=Remote+backup+software&\
w2=Network+backup+software&w3=Server+backup+software&w4=Offsite+backup+software&\
w5=Backup+software&w6=System+backup+software&c=6&s=163&.sig=H-SjpcJLYteI2TCtTH_G\
4Q>Backup
>software
><http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=System+backup+software&w1=Remote+backup+so\
ftware&w2=Network+backup+software&w3=Server+backup+software&w4=Offsite+backup+so\
ftware&w5=Backup+software&w6=System+backup+software&c=6&s=163&.sig=HrCW_kjQ2VFHp\
-0sDdE1Ug>System
>backup software
>
>
>----------
>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>    *  Visit your group "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xxcopy>xxcopy" on the
web.
>    *
>    *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    *
>
<mailto:xxcopy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>xxcopy-unsubscrib\
e@yahoogroups.com
>
>    *
>    *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>----------

Francis wrote:

<snip>

  >> I remember that building a new computer used to be a lot
  >> of fun.  Somehow, much of the excitement is gone.
  >> I guess one of the reasons is that the new machine will
  >> probably be only marginally faster than (probably less
  >> than twice as fast as) the one that was built 4 years ago.
  >
  > What about the noise ? I'm going to build a new PC my self
  > too, quiet will be my first concern...

Long ago, I gave up on the noise issue.  My computer is
extremely noisy (often, I have two computers running
in front of me --- one is a test machine).  In theory,
I could place them far away to reduce the noise.  But,
I find it too inconvenient when I need to interact with the
machine (even though it is not an everyday event).

Furthermore, with the two computers on my desk, there are a
total of four "Mobile Rack" disk trays, each with a small fan.
They contribute to the noise considerably.  But, I found the
temperature of the disk without fan gets very high, especially
for a 7200 rpm disk.  So, I learned to live with the constant
noise.  Once I pay attention to the noise, it is unbearably
loud.

Dell's desktop and laptop computers are impressively quiet.
But, I don't have neither for myself at this moment.

Kan Yabumoto

Windows 95, Pentium II, 266MHz, 32MB RAM. 3.2GB HDD

I've been using XXCOPY with the /CLONE switch to back up my laptop computer
onto a PCMCIA 5GB Hard disk.  Now I need to restore the data to the laptop
hard disk.  I can get booted to the hard disk (which shows up as drive D:)  in
Windows 95 MSDOS mode and need to restore from D: to the C:  drive.

When I try to run XXCOPY D: C: /CLONE, I get the error message:

"This program cannot be run in DOS mode."

When I run XXCOPY15 D: C: /CLONE, I get the error message:

"Invalid switch (/CLONE)"

I tried running XXCOPY15 D: C: but the hidden files didn't get copied and
there were about 75 copy failure messages.

In Windows 95 MSDOS mode (DOS Prompt) how can I restore the data from a
PCMCIA Hard Drive (D:\>) to the Laptop Hard Drive (C:\>).

Thanks

V Harris



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, andy.cawdell@... wrote:

> I've looked at /BU as you say my syntax avoids hidden and read only
files
> - and think I will use  /BU  - I do not want older files  and KS and
other
> defaults are  fine - so I presume I replace "/S /Y /DA" with "/BN"
>
> One further issue is that I might want to delete files on the target
that
> are no longer in the source copy - would "/BN /RC" achieve this?
>
>


Sorry for the slow response, I've been busying setting up my new computer.

Yes, adding /BN and /RC should do it along with a few other switches
you did not mention.  However there's an easier way yet, just use the
/CLONE option followed by the /BN option.  The /CLONE option is like
/BU except it will delete orphan files on the destination that no
longer exist on the source.  By adding the /BN option AFTER /CLONE /BN
will override /CLONE's option to use /BI (like /BU does).  (Note if
you put /BN before /CLONE it will not override /CLONE's /BI option, so
the placement of /BN in your command line is important.)

Also regarding /CLONE you might read my next message to V Harris on
how NOT to use /CLONE.

John

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, VHarris001@... wrote:
>
> Windows 95, Pentium II, 266MHz, 32MB RAM. 3.2GB HDD
>
> I've been using XXCOPY with the /CLONE switch to back up my laptop
computer
> onto a PCMCIA 5GB Hard disk.  Now I need to restore the data to the
laptop
> hard disk.  I can get booted to the hard disk (which shows up as
drive D:)  in
> Windows 95 MSDOS mode and need to restore from D: to the C:  drive.
>
> When I try to run XXCOPY D: C: /CLONE, I get the error message:
>
> "This program cannot be run in DOS mode."
>
> When I run XXCOPY15 D: C: /CLONE, I get the error message:
>
> "Invalid switch (/CLONE)"
>
> I tried running XXCOPY15 D: C: but the hidden files didn't get
copied and
> there were about 75 copy failure messages.
>
> In Windows 95 MSDOS mode (DOS Prompt) how can I restore the data
from a
> PCMCIA Hard Drive (D:\>) to the Laptop Hard Drive (C:\>).
>
> Thanks
>
> V Harris
>


When you /cloned your laptop to the PCMCIA hard drive, you probably
didn't successfully copy the files necessary to make the destination
hard drive bootable.  So I'd start by reinstalling Windows in the
laptop via the Windows installation disks or CD.

As far as copying data back from the PCMCIA hard drive to the laptop,
you can thank your lucky stars it didn't work.  For your command line
is one of the most dangerous command lines to use with xxcopy.  Why?
Well for one reason you did not terminate your source drive with a \
so the actual source could have been any directory on the D: drive.
That along with the /clone option means you could have deleted a lot
of files from the C:\ drive inadvertently.

I have no idea why /clone option did not work for you, except to say
it's not xxcopy15 it's xxcopy16.

You might try this command line instead.

XXCOPY16 D:\ C:\ /KS/H/E/R/Q/Y/BI

John

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Emery" <rjemery@...> wrote:
>
> Garry,
>
> When attempting to write back backup files to my W98 C directory,
> following the procedure your suggested, I did run into the
> problem of file copying failing because the operating system
> files, numbering about 35, were in use.  Attempts to boot from
> the partially restored system also proved futile.
>
> How then does one restore the C drive from its backup when the
> only way to run XXCOPY is from a booted (W98) Windows system
> which is and of itself that which is being restored?
>
> --
> RJ

Sorry for the late reply - I've been away for a few weeks.
Basically you can't restore an OS over the top of itself.
You need to create a DOS (or similar) boot disk and boot into
that then restore the OS files that couldn't be copied using
xxcopy16. Note that DOS and xxcopy16 will only work with short
8.3 filenames but for the OS files this is usually acceptable
since they typically only use 8.3 names.

Some time ago Kan discussed an alternative for restoring a
system from a backup but I can't find the link to that post.
Essentially it involves copying the windows files to a directory
with a different name then simply renaming the directory. If
I recall correctly the steps are like this:

1. Boot to windows
2. Copy from the \windows\ backup to say c:\wind\
e.g. xxcopy h:\windows\ c:\wind\ /bu
3. Boot to a DOS boot disk
4. Rename c:\windows c:\windbak
5. Rename c:\wind c:\windows
6. Boot to windows and you should be good to go

Garry

--- John Zeman <john041650@...> wrote:

> --- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, VHarris001@... wrote:
> >
> > In Windows 95 MSDOS mode (DOS Prompt) how can I
> restore the data
> from a
> > PCMCIA Hard Drive (D:\>) to the Laptop Hard Drive
> (C:\>).
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > V Harris
> >
>
>
> When you /cloned your laptop to the PCMCIA hard
> drive, you probably
> didn't successfully copy the files necessary to make
> the destination
> hard drive bootable.  So I'd start by reinstalling
> Windows in the
> laptop via the Windows installation disks or CD.
>
> As far as copying data back from the PCMCIA hard
> drive to the laptop,
> you can thank your lucky stars it didn't work.  For
> your command line
> is one of the most dangerous command lines to use
> with xxcopy.  Why?
> Well for one reason you did not terminate your
> source drive with a \
> so the actual source could have been any directory
> on the D: drive.
> That along with the /clone option means you could
> have deleted a lot
> of files from the C:\ drive inadvertently.
>
> I have no idea why /clone option did not work for
> you, except to say
> it's not xxcopy15 it's xxcopy16.
>
> You might try this command line instead.
>
> XXCOPY16 D:\ C:\ /KS/H/E/R/Q/Y/BI
>
> John
>


Thanks for these switches -- I see now what they
accomplish when used together.

When I use the "\" in the source, as in "XXCOPY16 D:\"
an error message is returned saying it is an invalid
source.  However, when I use it in XXCOPY, as in
"XXCOPY D:\" it works okay.  I can't seem to get the
XXCOPY16 command to find the source when I use the "\"
at the end of the path.  What am I doing wrong?

Thanks,

V Harris


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

This four step guide will give you the foundation you always wanted. Learning
the basics in handling stocks.

  This guide will help anyone, intrested in getting into the stocks game. Once
you follow through the guide, you will understand it's no rocket science. Only
thing is nobody ever try to explain it you from A to Z. Start now, just have a
look,

http://www.myjobhome.com/amex/

Step 1 - Basics
http://www.myjobhome.com/amex/Ameritrade-part1.htm

Step 2 - Initial Public Offerings
http://www.myjobhome.com/amex/Ameritrade-Part2.htm

Step 3 - Stock Market Players
http://www.myjobhome.com/amex/Ameritrade-Part3.htm

Step 4 - The Life of a Trade
http://www.myjobhome.com/amex/Ameritrade-Part4.htm





______________________________________________________________

If you think this email is spam
UNSUBSCRIBE - Please send an email to shadow1lk@...

John no probs with the slow response - just come back to this. Testing <
XXCOPY G:\DATA\ M:\ /clone /bn> just now and it seems to be fine but I'll
know when its done - and thanks for the warning. I think of myself  as an
old hand at the command line but have needed by backups now and again :-)

Elsewhere I have another bat file to save my Thurderbird profile down to
the server for backup to tape - belt and braces here :-) ...
<XXCOPY "C:\PortableThunderbird\profile\"  "G:\DATA\dump\Mozilla\Mozilla
Thunderbird data" /BU>

This when run asks me if I'm OK about adding </FF> as the timestamps are
adrift, and when I do that in the .bat file  it gives me it seems OK - so
best to use /BU and not /CLONE here?

bw

Andy

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

>Sorry for the slow response, I've been busying setting up my new
computer.

>Yes, adding /BN and /RC should do it along with a few other switches
>you did not mention.  However there's an easier way yet, just use the
>/CLONE option followed by the /BN option.  The /CLONE option is like
>/BU except it will delete orphan files on the destination that no
>longer exist on the source.  By adding the /BN option AFTER /CLONE /BN
>will override /CLONE's option to use /BI (like /BU does).  (Note if
>you put /BN before /CLONE it will not override /CLONE's /BI option, so
>the placement of /BN in your command line is important.)

>Also regarding /CLONE you might read my next message to V Harris on
>how NOT to use /CLONE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Windows XP

I've had trouble getting a program working when using the "QBL" switch.
I want to use the program to break up a larger file into 4.5GB chunks.
  After much testing I conclude that neither "4.5G" nor "4500000000"
will work, but "4500M" works OK.

Is this a valid conclusion and are there any other known limitations
with the switch?

Ed

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "vanords" <vanords@...> wrote:
>
> Windows XP
>
> I've had trouble getting a program working when using the "QBL"
> switch. I want to use the program to break up a larger file into
> 4.5GB chunks.
> After much testing I conclude that neither "4.5G" nor "4500000000"
> will work, but "4500M" works OK.
>
> Is this a valid conclusion and are there any other known
> limitations with the switch?
>
> Ed

The size parameters don't accept decimal values so 4.5G won't
work. As you've found, you need to use 4500M.

There is a bug with the 4500000000 size. The following
from the log file indicates a discrepancy between the command
line parameters and the program parameters:

=============================================================
XXCOPY ver 2.92.8   2006-02-07 08:28:57   Windows Ver 5.0.2195
  Command Line  = xxcopy d:\temp\ f:\test\
  /qbl:4500000000/on:xxcopy.log
-------------------------------------------------------------
Switch Parameters
  /AXH /AXS /B0 /C /CA /CB0 /CCY /CK /CR3 /D0 /DL0 /E0 /EC0 /ED0
  /ER0 /F0 /FM0 /FF0 /FL /FT0 /FW /H0 /I0 /IN* /K0 /L0 /N0 /NP0
  /NX /NI0 /NW /NC0 /oNd:\xxcopy.log /oD1 /oE0 /oF1 /oI0 /oP0
  /oS0 /oX0 /P0 /PB0 /PBH /PC0 /PD0 /PN /Po /PZ0 /Q0 /QF0
  /QBL205032704 /QS0 /R0 /S0 /SP0 /SG0 /SX0 /SZ:- /T0 /TR00 /TS0
  /TD0 /TTA0 /TCA0 /TCC0 /TCW /TM0 /U0 /V0 /W0 /WD /X /Z0 /ZE0
  /ZS0 /ZX0
---------------------------------------------------------------

Note that /qbl:4500000000 on the command line becomes
/QBL205032704 in the parameter listing. This is a 32 bit
integer overflow i.e. 4500000000 - 2^32 = 205032704

However irrespective of this, you say "I want to use the program
to break up a larger file into 4.5GB chunks." Xxcopy won't break
up the file - it will copy the first 4.5GB only. The balance of
the file won't be copied at all. If you need to break up the
file, you need a file splitting utility.

Garry

A further query - checking memory use in Windows Task Manager/Processes I
see XXCOPY.EXE is running evening tho' I was not "xxcopying" on that box
at that time. Tried to "end process" but it would not - the xxcopy item
disappeared and then appeared again  - and this only seems to start after
I run XXCOPY on that box for the first time after a reboot.  is this usual
behaviour?

I am running version 2.92.6



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,

I'm using XXcopy and InCD to backup data on DVD+RW disks.

As security is not supported on the destination file system, I'm
looking for a way to password protect the DVD disk or to encrypt the files on
the fly.

Thank you in advance for any hints.

Francis

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "Garry Deane" <garrydeane@...> wrote:
>
> --- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "vanords" vanords@ wrote:
> >
> > Windows XP
> >
> > I've had trouble getting a program working when using the "QBL"
> > switch. I want to use the program to break up a larger file into
> > 4.5GB chunks.
> > After much testing I conclude that neither "4.5G" nor "4500000000"
> > will work, but "4500M" works OK.
> >
> > Is this a valid conclusion and are there any other known
> > limitations with the switch?
> >
> > Ed
>
> The size parameters don't accept decimal values so 4.5G won't
> work. As you've found, you need to use 4500M.
>
> There is a bug with the 4500000000 size. The following
> from the log file indicates a discrepancy between the command
> line parameters and the program parameters:
>
> =============================================================
> XXCOPY ver 2.92.8 2006-02-07 08:28:57 Windows Ver 5.0.2195
> Command Line = xxcopy d:\temp\ f:\test\
> /qbl:4500000000/on:xxcopy.log
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Switch Parameters
> /AXH /AXS /B0 /C /CA /CB0 /CCY /CK /CR3 /D0 /DL0 /E0 /EC0 /ED0
> /ER0 /F0 /FM0 /FF0 /FL /FT0 /FW /H0 /I0 /IN* /K0 /L0 /N0 /NP0
> /NX /NI0 /NW /NC0 /oNd:\xxcopy.log /oD1 /oE0 /oF1 /oI0 /oP0
> /oS0 /oX0 /P0 /PB0 /PBH /PC0 /PD0 /PN /Po /PZ0 /Q0 /QF0
> /QBL205032704 /QS0 /R0 /S0 /SP0 /SG0 /SX0 /SZ:- /T0 /TR00 /TS0
> /TD0 /TTA0 /TCA0 /TCC0 /TCW /TM0 /U0 /V0 /W0 /WD /X /Z0 /ZE0
> /ZS0 /ZX0
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Note that /qbl:4500000000 on the command line becomes
> /QBL205032704 in the parameter listing. This is a 32 bit
> integer overflow i.e. 4500000000 - 2^32 = 205032704
>
> However irrespective of this, you say "I want to use the program
> to break up a larger file into 4.5GB chunks." Xxcopy won't break
> up the file - it will copy the first 4.5GB only. The balance of
> the file won't be copied at all. If you need to break up the
> file, you need a file splitting utility.
>
> Garry
>


That explains why I had a problem.

The program clears the "A" bit as it copies, then recopies. So the
second time through it starts where the first copy stopped. Then the
third and so on until the copied bytes equak zero.

ed

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, V Harris <vharris001@...> wrote:
>
> When I use the "\" in the source, as in "XXCOPY16 D:\"
> an error message is returned saying it is an invalid
> source.  However, when I use it in XXCOPY, as in
> "XXCOPY D:\" it works okay.  I can't seem to get the
> XXCOPY16 command to find the source when I use the "\"
> at the end of the path.  What am I doing wrong?
>
>


Have you tried going to a command prompt (DOS prompt) and just typing
in D: then pressing ENTER to see if your machine sees the D: drive?
If it does not then xxcopy16 will not see it either.  If it does then
post your exact command line here, including the directory you are
starting in.  In other words I think we'll need more information from
you before we can offer much more help.

John

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, andy.cawdell@... wrote:
>
> John no probs with the slow response - just come back to this. Testing <
> XXCOPY G:\DATA\ M:\ /clone /bn> just now and it seems to be fine but
I'll
> know when its done - and thanks for the warning. I think of myself
as an
> old hand at the command line but have needed by backups now and
again :-)
>
> Elsewhere I have another bat file to save my Thurderbird profile
down to
> the server for backup to tape - belt and braces here :-) ...
> <XXCOPY "C:\PortableThunderbird\profile\"
"G:\DATA\dump\Mozilla\Mozilla
> Thunderbird data" /BU>
>
> This when run asks me if I'm OK about adding </FF> as the timestamps
are
> adrift, and when I do that in the .bat file  it gives me it seems OK
- so
> best to use /BU and not /CLONE here?
>


It sounds like /BU would be a better option in this situation.
Actually I prefer to use /BU most of the time and only occasionally
run /clone or another variation of it to remove orphans from the
destination.

John

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, andy.cawdell@... wrote:
>
> A further query - checking memory use in Windows Task
Manager/Processes I
> see XXCOPY.EXE is running evening tho' I was not "xxcopying" on that
box
> at that time. Tried to "end process" but it would not - the xxcopy item
> disappeared and then appeared again  - and this only seems to start
after
> I run XXCOPY on that box for the first time after a reboot.  is this
usual
> behaviour?
>
> I am running version 2.92.6
>


I haven't heard of this and after doing a couple quick tests I cannot
duplicate that on my machine.

However I'll watch for this behavior in my future use of xxcopy.

John

Evaluating this product, forgot xcopy years ago!  But, I would like to
backup (example) d:\dir1, d:\dir2, e:\dir1\dira - from ServerA to
ServerB (same subnet) to be sent via intranet to ServerC (can not send
directly to ServerC due to certain issues)  Drives will be mapped on
ServerB to ServerA.

A) Significant issue here is backup times and downtime during backups
due to downtime window

1) Should Script run on ServerB and then Copy to ServerA or do using a
mapped drive?
2) Want to Run this s-f evenings, but want to make sure that the date
is not the system date, but the next date that belongs to the next
subsequent backup (ex. if the backup done on sat. AM for Fri. PM
backup, I would like to see Friday's date and not Saturday's date...
picky, picky.. but is a business requirement)

Thanks in advance,
Alex