I want to transfer files From A folder to B folder.But I want to just transfer last modifed date changed files, is it possible?
thanks
You haven't provided details of the operating system you're using, but assuming it's Linux or Mac you could use rsync.
Have a look at this thread which gives a couple of examples: http://hintsforums.macworld.com/showthread.php?t=100176
If you're on Windows, SyncBack or DeltaCopy software programs might be a good solution.
Related
I want to put some sort of "hook" into windows (only has to work on Windows Server 2008 R2 and above) which when I ask for a file on disk and it's not there it then requests it from a web server and caches it locally.
The files are immutable and have unique file names.
The application which is trying to open these files is written in C and just opens a file using the operating system in the normal way. Say it calls OpenFile asking for c:\scripts\1234.12.script, and that is there then it will just open it normally. If then it asks for c:\scripts\1234.13.script and it isn't then my hook in the operating system will then go and ask my web service for the file, download it and then return that file as it it were there all the time.
I'd prefer to write this as a usermode process (I've never written a windows driver), it should only fire when files are not found in a specific folder, and I'd prefer if possible to write it in a managed language (C# would be perfect). The files are small (< 50kB) and the web service is fast and the internet connection blinding so I'm not expecting it to take more than a second to download the file.
My question is - where do I start looking for information about this kind of thing? And if anyone has done anything similar - do you know what options I have (eg can it be done in C#?)?
You would need to create a kernel-mode filesystem filter driver which would intercept requests for opening such files and would "fake" those files. I should say that this is a very complicated task even for driver development. Our CallbackFilter product would be able to solve your problem however mechanism for "faking" files is not yet ready (we plan this feature for CallbackFilter 3). Until then I don't know any user-mode solutions (frankly speaking, no kernel-mode solutions as well) that would solve your problem.
If you can change the folder the application is accessing, then you can create a virtual file system and map it to the drive letter or a folder on NTFS drive. From the virtual file system you can direct most requests to/from real disk and if the file doesn't exist, you can download the file and cache it. Our other product, Callback File System, lets you do what I described in user-mode. If you have a one-time task you need to accomplish, and don't have a budget for it, please contact us anyway and maybe we can find some solution. There also exists an open-source solution with similar (but not so comprehensive) functionality named Dokan, yet I will refrain from commenting on its quality.
You can also try Dokan , it open source and you can check its discussion group for question and guides.
I have found a program that can make you save space by hardlinking files that are actually the same, thus leaving only one copy of the file on the file system with more than one hardlink pointing to it. The program is called hardlink.
This is very nice as I have at last found a way to save space on my backup disk for old backups I have made before I knew about rsync and incremental backups.
After such a lengthy introduction, any reader would expect a question, so here it is:
Would it be safe to use hardlinks to save space on a ntfs partition? The hardlinks would of course be created from Linux, using the hardlink program mentioned above. More precisely, will Windows (any version) be able to then use the files that would have been replaced by hardlinks?
Many thanks
There are hardlinks on Windows. They are created by the CreateHardLink system call in kernel32.dll. As to whether your hardlink program would work over remote shares, I wouldn't know, but a native one or one from cygwin would.
Now the real question is whether or not Windows programs handle them. Even Windows Explorer fails to calculate disk space used for hardlinks correctly.
I did a small test. Creating a hardlink (using 'ln TargetName LinkName') yields the same file at creation time, but after that the file and the hardlink content change independently. I would therefore discourage any use of unix based hard links on an NTFS partition. Use either an Ext4 partition (linux only) or software adapted for windows-like links on NTFS partitioning (windows software or perhaps some linux software if explicitly mentioned).
I guess that the program hardlink will either fail because hard links doesn’t exists on Windows or create Windows shortcuts.
I have a build script where i create a text report file and output various log type stuff to it. The data is all being built onto an external hd which (according to 'mount') has file format "fuseblk" (which i've never heard of).
The building all seems to work ok but my report files are being saved as executables, which linux interprets as SOR files. I'd like them to just be regular text files, openable by default in my regular text editor.
I'm making the file, and writing to it, like this:
#report = File.open(File.join(DESTINATION_BUILD_FOLDER, "#{title.folder_name}_report.txt"),"w")
...
s = "making modules folder inside resource_library folder";puts s; #report.puts s
...
#report.close
I've done this lots of times before and never encountered this problem. Any ideas anyone?
cheers, max
ps i know that i can edit the saved files to make them non-executable, my question is 'why is this happening in the first place?'. Cheers :)
I don't think there's anything wrong with your program. The fuseblk just means it's being mounted through FUSE, which allows filesystem drivers to run as userspace programs, instead of kernel modules. Most likely, the filesystem is NTFS or FAT32.
The problem here is that Linux is assuming everything on the drive has the execute bit set. This is because neither NTFS nor FAT32 have the capability to store Linux permission bits (NTFS has a very different permissions system, FAT32 has virtually none). And I bet you're trying to double-click on the log files in something like the gnome file explorer, right?
Well, go there with the command line and use less or your favorite command-line editor to view them. Or right click on them in the file explorer, or open them with File -> Open from a text editor. If you ask your question to people who know Gnome (or KDE?) better, you'll probably get a better answer.
I am trying to copy C source files from a vms alpha to a windows machine to allow easier editing of the code. (VMS editor is just a text editor and it would be nice to have syntax highlighting etc)
I can copy this across using Exceed FTP and this handles the issue of duplicate filenames with version suffix that vms has:
File.c;1
File.c;2
Flle.c;3
But when I open a file I've transferred, all the line breaks have been lost and the entire file is just one line.
Can anyone recommend a solution to this or offer any hints?
Thanks in advance
ps. I need to be able to copy the files back to vms and still maintain format.
It may be off interest by now, but in case you still wonder about "one-line" text files after FTP transfer.
The short answer: force the FTP transfer mode to ASCII (or text) in your FTP client. This will make sure that the C-files you transferring (in fac all files) are treated as text, otherwise they're assumed to be binary, so you get a byte-stream.
Long answer: There're 2 FTP transfer modes: ASCII/text and binary/image. The default is sometimes clent or server-specific.
Many clients have Auto-mode that interprets the file extension to set the proper transfer mode (.TXT,.CSV etc..)
When you access the VMS server via FTP client, too often the [Win-based] client is not VMS friendy, so it does not parse the file-list properly. Thus it gets confused by version number appended to the "usual" file-name:
filename.ext;ver ==> file.c;1
So instead of seeing .C (and assuming text), it sees .C;1 and thinks it's binary.
I use Filezilla FTP client to/from VMS and so far it does it properly (though version-support is not as I'd sometimes like).
Copying a file to and from your windows desktop every time you want to edit gets old very quickly.
You may be able to implement a much nicer alternative. There is some software under VMS that permits a VMS directory tree to be treated as a "network disk" under windows. Once you've set it up, and set up your windows to recognize the network disk, you can just open the file with a windows text editor without moving it from VMS to windows. You can also browse the directory tree, which appears like a tree of folders.
When you issue a save from your text editor, the saved copy supercedes the previous version over in VMS land. And it mediates correctly between RMS format and embedded newline format. It's a whole lot more convenient than FTP, for this purpose.
After doing a quick Google search, I think the name of the VMS software is PATHWORKS. But I'm not sure.
A few points I have on this
PATHWORKS is fairly old and (as far as I recall - I dont use it) doesnt work well with recent windows versions, such as supporting Active Directory. Within the last few years HP have ported SAMBA to VMS and this is the way to go if you want to make areas of disk visible to windows machines. Should be easyt to find on HP web site.
If you want to try the FTP/SFTP route I would try SFTP and go for VMS version of at least 8.2. TheTCPIP suite was rewritten (or reported from a Unix version) at this point.
VMS supports a number of formats for text files. As well as the complex record structure described above, there is STREAM_LF which is the same as a unix file and STREAM_CRLF
I found some interesting information about OpenVMS text file structure. That corresponds with a vague memory I have of how VMS handles text files; they're not stored as streams of bytes like Windows and Unix systems, but as a sequence of records (each record is a text line). Records can be either fixed width or variable width. Whatever reads the file is responsible for the "paper control", what we normally call newlines these days.
You might check the options in Exceed FTP to make sure that you're transferring the file in an appropriate ASCII mode. There might be special options you need to set on the FTP server to read and write the files in the appropriate mode too.
I'm no expert - let's get that out and in the open ;)
I have been having similar problems in FTPing files from OVMS Alphaserver to Win7 desktop so I can migrate to SQL.
FTP [Attachmate & WIn CLI] workled fine under WinNT.
I suspect Win7 does not like the name.ext;version format of the OVMS file.
Filezilla - doesn't work.
PuTTY - doesn't work
Window CLI FTP - doesn't work [partial file transfer; times out & truncates file].
Using Attachmate's "Reflections for the Web 2011" to emulate Vax terminal - works fine.
Think I'll have to go back to Attachmate for assistance but partially hamstrung by our [Australian Fed Govt] IT services which has the final say
Some editors, such as BBEdit on the Mac, support directly opening/saving files via FTP/SFTP/etc. (BBEdit also supports various different line endings as used on different platforms, which would help with your other problem). I expect there must be a Windows editor with similar functionality - my Windows-using colleagues all rave about something called CodeWrite (or CodeWright ?) so I guess I would take a look at something like that.
When I defragment my XP machine I notice that there is a block of "Unmovable Files". Is there a file attribute I can use to make my own files unmovable?
Just to clarify, I want a way to programmatically tell Windows that a file that I create should be unmovable. Is this possible, and if so, how can I do it?
Thanks,
Terry
A lot of system files cannot be moved after the system boots, such as the page file and registry database files.
This utility runs before Windows boots to defragment those files. I have it set to run at every boot, and it works well for me on several machines.
Note that the very first time you boot up with this utility set to run, it may take several minutes to defrag. After that first run though, it finishes in just 3 or 4 seconds.
Edit0: To respond to your clarification- that link says windows has marked the page file and registry files as open for exclusive access. So you should be able to do the same thing with the LockFile API Call. However, that's not an attribute of the file itself. You'd have to actually run some background program that locks the file for exclusive access.
There are no file attributes that you can place on your files to mark them as immovable. The only way that a file cannot be moved (I think) during defragmentation is to have some other process have the file open (for read or write, I'm not even sure that you need to have the file open in exclusive mode or not).
Quite frankly, I cannot think of a reason that you'd want your files not to move, unless you have specific requirements about where on the disk platter your files reside. Defragmentation should generally lead to faster disk access and that seems to be desireable in all cases :-)
This usually means that the file is in use by some process. If you're defragmenting, you'll likely see this with a lot of system files. If the file should legitimately be movable and is stuck (it's being held by a process that runs at startup but shouldn't be, for example), the most useful way of resolving the problem is to remove all permissions on the file, reboot, restore the permissions, and then get rid of the file/run the program that's trying to use it.
I suppose the ugly way is to have an application boot on startup, check every few seconds if defrag is running and if so open the file in exclusive mode.
This is really ugly and I don't recommend it unless there is no cleaner solution.
Terry, the answers all mention ways to prevent files from becoming unmovable during defragmentation. From your question it appears that you are in fact wanting to make your personal files unmovable. Can you please clarify what is appealing about making your files unmovable.
I assume you're using the defragger that comes with Windows. Some commercial ones like DiskKeeper can move some of these files (usually system files). You can try their trial versions.
Contig might serve your purpose http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897428.aspx
I'm relatively certain I ran across some methods/attributes you could access programatically to do exactly what you want. This was back in NT4 days though and my memory isn't that good.
For a little more complete solution try Raxco's PerfectDisk. While it is a commercial product it does a very good job and supports boot time defrag of system files. The first defrag takes longer than say DiskKeeper but its a single pass defragger and supports defragging with very little free space left on the drive. Overall its a much smarter defrag program then any other I've seen and supports systems of any size.
http://www.raxco.com/
first try to move(or delete) the files within safe mode. If can not, try to move(or delete) the files with linux.
But be careful if those are the windows system files, then you are failed to boot up your windows.
Some reason why the files are unmovable are : the file size is too big, the files are being in open/in use condition, insufficient security privileges, being access by other computer/s, and many other things.