Xcopy sometimes fails

Dear geeks,
I do backups from C: to E: by a simple Xcopy. There is a drawback: sometimes
Xcopy doesn't copy all the files it should copy. Some files are unheeded.
The missed files are not blocked. They are inactive and isolated, they are
not running programs and they don't belong to running programs.

However if I start Xcopy again, it copies even the missed files now.
Therefore to get a complete copy I must start Xcopy twice.

What is your guess?

GF

On 26 Feb 2013, "G.F." wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

I do backups from C: to E: by a simple Xcopy. There is a drawback:
sometimes Xcopy doesn't copy all the files it should copy. Some
files are unheeded. The missed files are not blocked. They are
inactive and isolated, they are not running programs and they
don't belong to running programs.

However if I start Xcopy again, it copies even the missed files
now. Therefore to get a complete copy I must start Xcopy twice.

What is your guess?

I don't know, but I would consider using Robocopy instead. It's more
flexible, and possibly more reliable than XCOPY.

Nil wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, "G.F." wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

I do backups from C: to E: by a simple Xcopy. There is a drawback:
sometimes Xcopy doesn't copy all the files it should copy. Some
files are unheeded. The missed files are not blocked. They are
inactive and isolated, they are not running programs and they
don't belong to running programs.

However if I start Xcopy again, it copies even the missed files
now. Therefore to get a complete copy I must start Xcopy twice.

What is your guess?

I don't know, but I would consider using Robocopy instead. It's more
flexible, and possibly more reliable than XCOPY.

One of the benefits of Robocopy, is it creates a log of everything
it's doing, which you can examine when the command completes.

Robocopy is a folder copying utility, but it can copy an entire disk.
Robocopy ships with some OSes, but for WinXP, you have to download
a copy.

This is the dangerous "mirror" option, which deletes all files
on the destination volume, that don't match the source. Any file already
copied (matching dates), would not get recopied. Removing the mirror
option allows ordinary copying.

robocopy E:\ P:\ /mir /copy:datso /dcopy:t /r:3 /w:2 /zb /np /tee /v /log:robocopy_e_to_p.log

I use version XP026 on my WinXP machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocopy

A download is available here.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m...spotlight.aspx

http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ght2006_11.exe

The release notes are inside the download, in file

Microsoft_Robocopy_GUI_3_1_2_Release_Notes.txt

There's no need to use the GUI if you don't want to.
I run mine from a command prompt window.

HTH,
Paul

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:07:21 +0100, "G.F." wrote:

Dear geeks,
I do backups from C: to E: by a simple Xcopy. There is a drawback: sometimes
Xcopy doesn't copy all the files it should copy. Some files are unheeded.

IIRC that's true

The missed files are not blocked. They are inactive and isolated, they are
not running programs and they don't belong to running programs.

Programs in use should still be copyable. Perhaps these files are
hidden, or system. It's been a few years so I don't remember what I'm
reerring to above when I say, "that's true." If you have win
explorer set to show all the files, eventually you can forget the
distinctions between system, hidden, and others.

However if I start Xcopy again, it copies even the missed files now.

Oooo. I should have read the whole post first. This I don't
remember. Unless, are you only copying modified files, and are you
doing that by comparing dates? If either is true, let me know, and
I'll try to figure out why I asked.

Therefore to get a complete copy I must start Xcopy twice.

What is your guess?

Are the two DOS newsgroups inactive these days? (Great answer, huh?)

Also, I often suggest the free utiliity XXCopy, at www.xxcopy.com .
It also has it's own quite active yahoo mailing list, where people
care deeply about all this stuff. XXCopy is free for personal use
and compatiable with Xcopy commands, but has many more options,
including perhaps one which doesn't require you to run the program
twice.

BTW, xxcopy creates a log too. It also has an option called /Clone
and you can get an idea of what has to included for the copy to match
the original. IIRC, the problem with /clone is that it doesn't put
the same creatiion date, etc into directories that are created. This
was done on purpose for a reason I can't remember, and there is an
option which does copy ;t he creation date too.

Oh, I haven't read the list for about a year, but the author of the
program reads the list often.

There is also XXClone, for XP and above. For winME and below, XXCopy
was sufficient to clone a a booting disk, but there's something
different about XP (and 2000 iirc) . XXClone is also free but doesn't
do incremental updates unless you pay, iirc. My own thought is that
one can use XXCOPY to make incremental updates, and reserve XXClone
for initial clones to an empty file. www.xxclone.com and it has a
mailing list at google, iirc. not at Yahool like the other one.


GF

"micky" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

Perhaps these files are
hidden, or system

No.

Unless, are you only copying modified files, and are you
doing that by comparing dates? If either is true, let me know, and
I'll try to figure out why I asked.

My Xcopy copies files that have the archive attribute On, therefore it
copies new and modified files only.
After the copy Xcopy sets the archive attribute of original files to Off.

Missed files keep instead their archive attribute On.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:14:51 +0100, "G.F." wrote:

"micky" ha scritto nel messaggio
.. .

Perhaps these files are
hidden, or system

No.

Unless, are you only copying modified files, and are you
doing that by comparing dates? If either is true, let me know, and
I'll try to figure out why I asked.

My Xcopy copies files that have the archive attribute On, therefore it
copies new and modified files only.
After the copy Xcopy sets the archive attribute of original files to Off.

That's right. What was I thinking? No one except someone using
XXCopy would try to use time to decide what file has changed and what
hasn't.

Missed files keep instead their archive attribute On.

I might have heard something about this, but I'd subscribe to the
yahoo mailing list XXCOPY and ask them about this. They really care
about Xcopy, especially when XXCopy works better.


"Yahoo! Groups Links


* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xxcopy/

Subscribe at the url above.


* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional


* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xxcopy/join
(Yahoo! ID required)


* To change settings via email:




* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:



* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"

In ,
micky typed:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:07:21 +0100, "G.F."
wrote:


....


Are the two DOS newsgroups inactive these days? (Great
answer, huh?)

Nope, they are still there and still active.


Also, I often suggest the free utiliity XXCopy, at
www.xxcopy.com . It also has it's own quite active yahoo
mailing list, where people care deeply about all this
stuff. XXCopy is free for personal use and compatiable
with Xcopy commands, but has many more options, including
perhaps one which doesn't require you to run the program
twice.

BTW, xxcopy creates a log too. It also has an option
called /Clone and you can get an idea of what has to
included for the copy to match the original. IIRC, the
problem with /clone is that it doesn't put the same
creatiion date, etc into directories that are created.
This was done on purpose for a reason I can't remember,
and there is an option which does copy ;t he creation
date too.

Oh, I haven't read the list for about a year, but the
author of the program reads the list often.

There is also XXClone, for XP and above. For winME and
below, XXCopy was sufficient to clone a a booting disk,
but there's something different about XP (and 2000 iirc)
. XXClone is also free but doesn't do incremental
updates unless you pay, iirc. My own thought is that
one can use XXCOPY to make incremental updates, and
reserve XXClone for initial clones to an empty file.
www.xxclone.com and it has a mailing list at google,
iirc. not at Yahool like the other one.


GF

I'll second the XXCopy nomination. I use it to quickly copy my web sites to
my external drive with the date and time appended to the filename and a log
of the activity is also created.
XXCopy is what XCopy should have been. I bought the lifetime license for
XXCopy Pro and have used it for many, many years without a glitch. If you
already know XCopy, you'll get along fine with XXCopy as it's very familiar
but with many, many more features and capabilities. Far as I know it can't
call the VSS copy though, so any files "in use", especially system files,
won't get backed up; you still need a dedicated program for that, like the
Norton Ghost that I use.

HTH,

Twayne`

G.F. wrote:

I do backups from C: to E: by a simple Xcopy. There is a drawback: sometimes
Xcopy doesn't copy all the files it should copy. Some files are unheeded.
The missed files are not blocked. They are inactive and isolated, they are
not running programs and they don't belong to running programs.

However if I start Xcopy again, it copies even the missed files now.
Therefore to get a complete copy I must start Xcopy twice.

What are the errors issued by xcopy when it fails to copy a file?

If the output is so long that you cannot see the errors then log the the
output of xcopy and look at it with Notepad or Wordpad.

xcopy ... logfile.txt & notepad logfile.txt

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:08:26 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
micky typed:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:07:21 +0100, "G.F."
wrote:


...


Are the two DOS newsgroups inactive these days? (Great
answer, huh?)

Nope, they are still there and still active.


Also, I often suggest the free utiliity XXCopy, at
www.xxcopy.com . It also has it's own quite active yahoo
mailing list, where people care deeply about all this
stuff. XXCopy is free for personal use and compatiable
with Xcopy commands, but has many more options, including
perhaps one which doesn't require you to run the program
twice.

BTW, xxcopy creates a log too. It also has an option
called /Clone and you can get an idea of what has to
included for the copy to match the original. IIRC, the
problem with /clone is that it doesn't put the same
creatiion date, etc into directories that are created.
This was done on purpose for a reason I can't remember,
and there is an option which does copy ;t he creation
date too.

Oh, I haven't read the list for about a year, but the
author of the program reads the list often.

There is also XXClone, for XP and above. For winME and
below, XXCopy was sufficient to clone a a booting disk,
but there's something different about XP (and 2000 iirc)
. XXClone is also free but doesn't do incremental
updates unless you pay, iirc. My own thought is that
one can use XXCOPY to make incremental updates, and
reserve XXClone for initial clones to an empty file.
www.xxclone.com and it has a mailing list at google,
iirc. not at Yahool like the other one.


GF

I'll second the XXCopy nomination. I use it to quickly copy my web sites to
my external drive with the date and time appended to the filename and a log
of the activity is also created.
XXCopy is what XCopy should have been. I bought the lifetime license for
XXCopy Pro and have used it for many, many years without a glitch. If you
already know XCopy, you'll get along fine with XXCopy as it's very familiar
but with many, many more features and capabilities. Far as I know it can't
call the VSS copy though, so any files "in use", especially system files,
won't get backed up; you still need a dedicated program for that, like the
Norton Ghost that I use.

I second everything you say.

I havent' used xxcopy for a while, but now t hat you mention it, if
copying a whole system drive, it does have to be run more than once to
get everything, probably for the same reason xcopy does. I can't
remember which files don't get copied. But it sets a return code. If
n files don't get copied, the return code is 100 plus n. So it would
be a simple matter to just write a .bat file that runs it 5 times or
until the return code is 100, whichever comes first. Running it
when only a few files are copied can take only 3 or 4 minutes for a
whole drive,

Another thing to note is that the option /clone , which implies a half
dozen other options, to make the destination file just like the
current source file, does all of that except one thing. it doesn[t'
copy the creation date and time and other date/times from the source
directory. Oh, I said this already.

HTH,

Twayne`

On 27/02/2013 12:14, G.F. wrote:
"micky" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

Perhaps these files are
hidden, or system

No.

Unless, are you only copying modified files, and are you
doing that by comparing dates? If either is true, let me know, and
I'll try to figure out why I asked.

My Xcopy copies files that have the archive attribute On, therefore it

False. You've got it wrong, man! It all depends on the parameters used.
It can copy ALL the files OR it can copy just the files with the Archive
Attribute (A) on. In that respect Xcopy is quite flexible. But I believe
that the third party XXcopy is superior to Xcopy.

BTW, XXcopy is free for private non-commercial use.
--
choro
*****

copies new and modified files only.
After the copy Xcopy sets the archive attribute of original files to Off.

Missed files keep instead their archive attribute On.

On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:07:21 AM UTC-6, G.F. wrote:
Dear geeks,

I do backups from C: to E: by a simple Xcopy. There is a drawback: sometimes

Xcopy doesn't copy all the files it should copy. Some files are unheeded.

The missed files are not blocked. They are inactive and isolated, they are

not running programs and they don't belong to running programs.



However if I start Xcopy again, it copies even the missed files now.

Therefore to get a complete copy I must start Xcopy twice.



What is your guess?



GF

:: Used by USB_Watcher.exe (c) 2012-2013 SiegeWorks
::
color 1f
@echo off
cls
echo.
echo.
echo.
echo Backing up files and copying them to Thumb Drive ( if available )
echo.
echo.
echo.
PING localhost -n 5 nul
color f

cd\
c:
cd c:\masm32\SOURCE

COPY /B c:\masm32\source\empty.asm +,,
COPY /B c:\masm32\source\bak.bat +,,
COPY /B c:\masm32\source\blank.asm +,,
COPY /B c:\masm32\source\IMPT_Quickies.txt +,,

:: Do some cleanup
::
if exist *.idb del *.idb
if exist *.udd del *.udd

c:\windows\wzzip -u source.zip *.asm *.rc *.ico *.inc *.def *.dll *.bat *.xml *.txt *.vbs
c:\windows\wzzip -u c:\masm32\SOURCE\bats.zip *.bat *.cmd
cd\
cd masm32\bin
c:\windows\wzzip -u c:\masm32\SOURCE\bats.zip *.bat

c:
cd\

cd C:\masm32\Word_Files
c:\windows\wzzip.exe -u WrdBckup.zip *.doc *.doc *.rtf *.png *.jpg *.pdf

xcopy /d /y c:\masm32\Word_Files\wrdbckup.zip d:\storage

xcopy /d /y c:\masm32\SOURCE\*.zip d:\storage

cd c:\masm32\SOURCE

c:\windows\wzzip -u bookmarks.zip "D:\Documents and Settings\Hanfc\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\aqoy67yr.default\boo kmarks.html"

if exist C:\masm32\SOURCE\*.udd del C:\masm32\SOURCE\"*.udd *.obj
:: COPY FILES FROM D:\storage TO THUMBDRIVE
::

cd\
cd c:\tasm\bin
c:\windows\wzzip -u 16_bit.zip *.asm *.inc *.bat

D:
cd storage
if exist f:\backup\ xcopy /d /y *.zip f:\backup
if exist f:\backup\ xcopy /d /y source.zip f:\backup
if exist f:\backup\ xcopy /d /y SS_Files.zip f:\backup
if exist f:\backup dir f:\backup

if exist g:\backup\ xcopy /d /y *.zip g:\backup
if exist g:\backup\ xcopy /d /y source.zip g:\backup
if exist g:\backup\ xcopy /d /y SS_Files.zip g:\backup
if exist g:\backup dir g:\backup

PING localhost -n 3 nul

exit

In message , Andy
writes:
[]
:: Used by USB_Watcher.exe (c) 2012-2013 SiegeWorks

Thanks, looks useful.
::
color 1f
[]
PING localhost -n 5 nul
color f

What do those 3 do?
[]
c:\windows\wzzip.exe -u WrdBckup.zip *.doc *.doc *.rtf *.png *.jpg *.pdf
[]
Any reason *.doc is there twice?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A bird in the hand makes it hard to blow your nose.

"choro" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
On 27/02/2013 12:14, G.F. wrote:

My Xcopy copies files that have the archive attribute On

False. You've got it wrong, man! It all depends on the parameters used. It
can copy ALL the files OR it can copy just the files with the Archive
Attribute (A) on.

I use Xcopy with the option /m.
Are you satisfied now?

"VanguardLH" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

What are the errors issued by xcopy when it fails to copy a file?

The next times I do backups I'll control possible errors issued.

In ,
micky typed:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:08:26 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
micky typed:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:07:21 +0100, "G.F."
wrote:


...


Are the two DOS newsgroups inactive these days? (Great
answer, huh?)

Nope, they are still there and still active.



....


I'll second the XXCopy nomination. I use it to quickly
copy my web sites to my external drive with the date and
time appended to the filename and a log of the activity
is also created. XXCopy is what XCopy should have
been. I bought the lifetime license for XXCopy Pro and
have used it for many, many years without a glitch. If
you already know XCopy, you'll get along fine with
XXCopy as it's very familiar but with many, many more
features and capabilities. Far as I know it can't call
the VSS copy though, so any files "in use", especially
system files, won't get backed up; you still need a
dedicated program for that, like the Norton Ghost that I
use.

I second everything you say.

I havent' used xxcopy for a while, but now t hat you
mention it, if copying a whole system drive, it does have
to be run more than once to get everything, probably for
the same reason xcopy does. I can't remember which
files don't get copied. But it sets a return code. If n
files don't get copied, the return code is 100 plus n.
So it would be a simple matter to just write a .bat file
that runs it 5 times or until the return code is 100,
whichever comes first. Running it when only a few
files are copied can take only 3 or 4 minutes for a whole
drive,

The reason that "seems" to work on boot drives, is that different system
files are "in use" at various and different times. Unless they've added the
capability to use Volume Shadow Copy (VSS) somehow, it will never completely
back up an actve boot drive. Are you implying that it will?
I just checked online and I don't see any mention of handling files "in
use"; on any drive. Also:
I've never had anything but a successful copy using XXCopy but I don't
need it for backups of the boot drive. For backup its major use is to
quickly back up a day's work, which is much faster than a backup program.
And, it knows what's backed up (not by the A bit) and doesn't repeat copying
a program that already exists.
Also unless you have a licensed version, there are some functions that
don't work.


Another thing to note is that the option /clone , which
implies a half dozen other options, to make the
destination file just like the current source file, does
all of that except one thing. it doesn[t' copy the
creation date and time and other date/times from the
source directory. Oh, I said this already.

I would really suggest you check out the site groups; lots of good info
there. Ask them about these things or look thru the past posts for relevant
information.


HTH,

Twayne`