A little more about XXCopy.

And how I solved a problem by writing you a question.

A year or two ago, I forget the exact problem, something to do with
running XXCopy more than once in the same bat file, and that it made me
answer some questions each time, and even though few if any of you use
XXCopy you solved the problem for me. Vanguard or Paul or Carlos iirc,
one of them I think.

So now I'm trying to use it on the laptop and for every xxcopy line in
the bat file it makes me install xxcopy, a multi-step process taking at
least 5 minutes. I don't even know what install means, since I chose
not to copy the files from where I first put them.

So I had to install 6 times two nights ago and was going to have to do
it again 6 times for a full backup and once for every miscellaneous
xxopy I do. Even though in the past I only had to install once per
computer.

I looked in XXCopy Help under install and I googled and I wrote you
a long detailed question, and in doing so figured out the problem.

The answer to the question 2 years ago was to stop using XXCOPY and use
XXCopy64SU, which I had just ignored for 20 years. And I see it's not
even found with Search in the long, detailed XXCopy Help file. I think
it was written after the help file was complete.

But I went back and ran plain old xxcopy, and it brought up the big
page, Do you want to let xxcopy change your computer? that means it
will install the program, and after that both it and xxcopySU64 work now
without installation. Whoopee.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

> A little more about XXCopy.
>
> And how I solved a problem by writing you a question.
>
> A year or two ago, I forget the exact problem, something to do with
> running XXCopy more than once in the same bat file, and that it made me
> answer some questions each time, and even though few if any of you use
> XXCopy you solved the problem for me. Vanguard or Paul or Carlos iirc,
> one of them I think.
>
> So now I'm trying to use it on the laptop and for every xxcopy line in
> the bat file it makes me install xxcopy, a multi-step process taking at
> least 5 minutes. I don't even know what install means, since I chose
> not to copy the files from where I first put them.
>
> So I had to install 6 times two nights ago and was going to have to do
> it again 6 times for a full backup and once for every miscellaneous
> xxopy I do. Even though in the past I only had to install once per
> computer.
>
> I looked in XXCopy Help under install and I googled and I wrote you
> a long detailed question, and in doing so figured out the problem.
>
> The answer to the question 2 years ago was to stop using XXCOPY and use
> XXCopy64SU, which I had just ignored for 20 years. And I see it's not
> even found with Search in the long, detailed XXCopy Help file. I think
> it was written after the help file was complete.
>
> But I went back and ran plain old xxcopy, and it brought up the big
> page, Do you want to let xxcopy change your computer? that means it
> will install the program, and after that both it and xxcopySU64 work now
> without installation. Whoopee.

xcopy is included in Windows, but not xxcopy which is 3rd party
software.

https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/xxcopy.html

The hyperlink to the author is no longer valid. Guess the author/owner
dropped xxcopy a while ago. The article above notes "Project has been
abandoned." PixieLab, the owner, went belly up around Jan 2018 (the
owner died). It devolved into commercialware, so maybe your old payware
license for it is no longer valid.

You sure robocopy (included in Windows) won't do what xxcopy did/does?
There's also the free version of SyncBack. There's also FreeFileSync
which I looked only for a few days, and decided to go back to SyncBack.
Syncback (paid) and FreeFileSync can use VSS to operate on open/locked
files. Robocopy doesn't use VSS, but I've read about workarounds where
you use other tools to create the shadow image, and copy from there, and
then delete the shadow. XXcopy didn't use VSS, either. With VSS, if
the copy tool hits an open or locked file, it cannot copy it. With some
copy tools, you can skip just the problematic file instead of aborting
the entire copy operation.

If you decide to go with Robocopy, I would change the retry args. The
defaults will keep retrying on a failed copy for a year, and that's on
each failed copy. The default retry count is 1 million, and the retry
interval is 30 seconds (347 days). This is to allow a chance for the
file to eventually close, so robocopy can then copy it. But the default
retry args mean retrying for 30 million seconds before giving up. I'd
change them to /r:100 and /w:5. If the file hasn't unlocked or closed
in 500 seconds (~8 minutes), it likely won't even after 30 million
seconds, plus you don't want to keep waiting on copies of files that
generate errors, especially if there are many of them. Because of
robocopy's lack of support for VSS (Volume Shadow copy Service), I
remember going to TeraCopy (https://www.codesector.com/teracopy) which
has a free version (I didn't need the features in the paid Pro version).
Like FreeFileSync, TeraCopy Free can use VSS to copy locked files while
SyncBack required a payware version to add VSS support. I don't
remember if TeraCopy had a CLI (Command Line Interface) to let you run
it from the command line. Ah, I just found:

https://help.codesector.com/knowledge-bases/2/articles/398-command-line

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 29 Jan 2023 00:45:39 -0600,
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

>micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
>> A little more about XXCopy.
>>
>> And how I solved a problem by writing you a question.
>>
>> A year or two ago, I forget the exact problem, something to do with
>> running XXCopy more than once in the same bat file, and that it made me
>> answer some questions each time, and even though few if any of you use
>> XXCopy you solved the problem for me. Vanguard or Paul or Carlos iirc,
>> one of them I think.
>>
>> So now I'm trying to use it on the laptop and for every xxcopy line in
>> the bat file it makes me install xxcopy, a multi-step process taking at
>> least 5 minutes. I don't even know what install means, since I chose
>> not to copy the files from where I first put them.
>>
>> So I had to install 6 times two nights ago and was going to have to do
>> it again 6 times for a full backup and once for every miscellaneous
>> xxopy I do. Even though in the past I only had to install once per
>> computer.
>>
>> I looked in XXCopy Help under install and I googled and I wrote you
>> a long detailed question, and in doing so figured out the problem.
>>
>> The answer to the question 2 years ago was to stop using XXCOPY and use
>> XXCopy64SU, which I had just ignored for 20 years. And I see it's not
>> even found with Search in the long, detailed XXCopy Help file. I think
>> it was written after the help file was complete.
>>
>> But I went back and ran plain old xxcopy, and it brought up the big
>> page, Do you want to let xxcopy change your computer? that means it
>> will install the program, and after that both it and xxcopySU64 work now
>> without installation. Whoopee.
>
>xcopy is included in Windows, but not xxcopy which is 3rd party
>software.
>
>https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/xxcopy.html
>
>The hyperlink to the author is no longer valid. Guess the author/owner
>dropped xxcopy a while ago. The article above notes "Project has been
>abandoned." PixieLab, the owner, went belly up around Jan 2018 (the
>owner died). It devolved into commercialware, so maybe your old payware
>license for it is no longer valid.

Kan got sick suddenly and died, prematurely, and he had not made
arrangements for someone to take over the business.

No, it's valid. I have the freeware version, and as I said, it's all
fixed now. I just haad to used xxcopy to install it and after that both
xxcopy and xxcopySU64 both work without further installation needed.

I didn't notice this on other computers because I had only used xxcopy
anyhow.

The freeware version is so powerful I used to wonder what more the paid
version does. I still don't konw but I don't think it's things I would
want to do. But it didn't expire either, once bought.

He also wrote XXClone and I was about to buy the paid version of that,
but I couldn't. The business was not functioning. I have the free
version which still works but it doesn't do incremental updates like the
paid version does, so I have to use something entirely different.
>
>You sure robocopy (included in Windows) won't do what xxcopy did/does?

I don't know. I looked at it once and I didn't see any point to
changing. IIRC it has a gui, but I'm not interested in that anyhow.

>There's also the free version of SyncBack. There's also FreeFileSync
>which I looked only for a few days, and decided to go back to SyncBack.
>Syncback (paid) and FreeFileSync can use VSS to operate on open/locked
>files. Robocopy doesn't use VSS, but I've read about workarounds where
>you use other tools to create the shadow image, and copy from there, and
>then delete the shadow. XXcopy didn't use VSS, either. With VSS, if
>the copy tool hits an open or locked file, it cannot copy it. With some
>copy tools, you can skip just the problematic file instead of aborting
>the entire copy operation.
>
>If you decide to go with Robocopy, I would change the retry args. The
>defaults will keep retrying on a failed copy for a year, and that's on
>each failed copy. The default retry count is 1 million, and the retry
>interval is 30 seconds (347 days). This is to allow a chance for the
>file to eventually close, so robocopy can then copy it. But the default
>retry args mean retrying for 30 million seconds before giving up. I'd
>change them to /r:100 and /w:5. If the file hasn't unlocked or closed
>in 500 seconds (~8 minutes), it likely won't even after 30 million
>seconds, plus you don't want to keep waiting on copies of files that
>generate errors, especially if there are many of them. Because of
>robocopy's lack of support for VSS (Volume Shadow copy Service), I
>remember going to TeraCopy (https://www.codesector.com/teracopy) which
>has a free version (I didn't need the features in the paid Pro version).
>Like FreeFileSync, TeraCopy Free can use VSS to copy locked files while
>SyncBack required a payware version to add VSS support. I don't
>remember if TeraCopy had a CLI (Command Line Interface) to let you run
>it from the command line. Ah, I just found:
>
>https://help.codesector.com/knowledge-bases/2/articles/398-command-line

If anyone wants a copy of XXCopy, let me know and I'll send one.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

> I looked at [Robocopy] once and I didn't see any point to changing.
> IIRC it has a gui, but I'm not interested in that anyhow.

No GUI. It's a console-mode program, just like xxcopy. Open a command
shell, and run:

robocopy /?

Neither robocopy or xxcopy support VSS, so they will hang or error on
open or locked files. That wasn't important to me for many years until
I started using them for backup jobs, and too many and important files
were getting missed because of locked files. I looked elsewhere for
copy tools that support VSS. I wasn't going to figure out how to use
the Windows tools to create a shadow image from which to copy.

On 1/29/2023 8:36 AM, micky wrote:

>
> If anyone wants a copy of XXCopy, let me know and I'll send one.

I trust when you use this tool, you have verified that the things
you expected to be copied, got copied.

Robocopy has Xj for handling Junction Points. If you started
copying at C:\users\Micky then there might be some Junction Points there.

Another problem with NTFS and File Explorer, is the user visually
identifying what files are there. Things with the Hidden attribute set.
The file copying utilities don't have a problem with those attributes,
but the human operator may not visually verify all items got copied.
And then, you don't know.

Even Everything.exe does not list all files. I discovered it could
not access the contents of lxss one day.

Both copying and verifying, are difficult to get exactly right, so
be careful with any assumptions.

You are probably just backing up user data files in Downloads,
in which case that's not hard to do for the software.

One reason I do full partition backups, is there is less chance
of me making mistakes while copying. But I still don't have a
tool, that can verify everything actually got copied. I do know
some things are missing, such as Windows.edb or Windows.db
(when you backup while the OS is running) and that's fine. Maybe
I don't get a copy of Pagefile.sys either :-) I am more uncertain
about Restore Points and exactly what is happening inside
System Volume Information. The OS may not be entirely honest
on that matter. Hard to say.

Paul

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 15:07:10 -0500, Paul wrote:
> Another problem with NTFS and File Explorer, is the user visually
> identifying what files are there. Things with the Hidden attribute set.
> The file copying utilities don't have a problem with those attributes,
> but the human operator may not visually verify all items got copied.
> And then, you don't know.
>

In Robocopy, you can control that with the /IA and /XA options.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 1/30/2023 11:13 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 15:07:10 -0500, Paul wrote:
>> Another problem with NTFS and File Explorer, is the user visually
>> identifying what files are there. Things with the Hidden attribute set.
>> The file copying utilities don't have a problem with those attributes,
>> but the human operator may not visually verify all items got copied.
>> And then, you don't know.
>>
>
> In Robocopy, you can control that with the /IA and /XA options.
>

Careful selection limiting report details greatly speeds up the copy

On 29/1/2023 2:45 pm, VanguardLH wrote:
>
> xcopy is included in Windows, but not xxcopy which is 3rd party
> software.
>
> You sure robocopy (included in Windows) won't do what xxcopy did/does?
> There's also the free version of SyncBack. There's also FreeFileSync
> which I looked only for a few days, and decided to go back to SyncBack.
> Syncback (paid) and FreeFileSync can use VSS to operate on open/locked
> files. Robocopy doesn't use VSS, but I've read about workarounds where
> you use other tools to create the shadow image, and copy from there, and
> then delete the shadow. XXcopy didn't use VSS, either. With VSS, if
> the copy tool hits an open or locked file, it cannot copy it. With some
> copy tools, you can skip just the problematic file instead of aborting
> the entire copy operation.

For basic backup, robocopy is fine. Here is an example:

robocopy c:\users\haha t:\backup /l /mt:1 /mir /xjd /xd $RECYCLE.BIN

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:06:06 +0800, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> For basic backup, robocopy is fine. Here is an example:
>
> robocopy c:\users\haha t:\backup /l /mt:1 /mir /xjd /xd $RECYCLE.BIN

/mt is not in my copy of the documentation (labeled XP010), though I
_do_ see it when I type "ROBOCOPY /?" so I now know what it does.

Anyone know where to get the most up-to-date documentation?

And just out of idle curiosity, why are you turning off
multithreading?

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:06:06 +0800, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> For basic backup, robocopy is fine. Here is an example:
>
> robocopy c:\users\haha t:\backup /l /mt:1 /mir /xjd /xd $RECYCLE.BIN

Just a note: /MIR implies /S. In other words, with /MIR, any files or
folders that exist in the destination or subfolders, but not in the
source or the same subfolders, will be deleted.

That may be what you want in some situations, but it was quite a
surprise to me because I hadn't reviewed the documentation carefully.
Fortunately, I was using /L (list what _would_ happen, but don't do
it) and examined the log, before running the command without /MIR.

If you want to mirror the source folder in the destination folder,
_without_ examining subfolders, use /PURGE rather than /MIR.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown wrote:

> with /MIR, any files or
> folders that exist in the destination or subfolders, but not in the
> source or the same subfolders, will be deleted.
>
> That may be what you want in some situations, but it was quite a
> surprise to me because I hadn't reviewed the documentation carefully.

Yes, that's the worst feature of robocopy for catching the unwary,
it does have its uses too, turns out robocopy is a much better deletion
utility than delete ...

robocopy C:\EmptyFolder D:\ThatHugeTreeOfFoldersYouWantGone /MIR

Poof! gone, no questions asked.

On 2023-01-31 17:17, Andy Burns wrote:
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> with /MIR, any files or
>> folders that exist in the destination or subfolders, but not in the
>> source or the same subfolders, will be deleted.
>>
>> That may be what you want in some situations, but it was quite a
>> surprise to me because I hadn't reviewed the documentation carefully.
>
> Yes, that's the worst feature of robocopy for catching the unwary,
> it does have its uses too, turns out robocopy is a much better deletion
> utility than delete ...
>
> robocopy C:\EmptyFolder D:\ThatHugeTreeOfFoldersYouWantGone /MIR
>
> Poof! gone, no questions asked.

rsync in Linux (I think there is a Windows version, unsure) does that
with the "--del" switch. For example, if you want to keep the copy
identical to the source, you need to delete on the copy files that
disappeared on the source. But if you are not careful, you can delete a
backup by accident.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.