Scripts Thread, batch copy has error insufficient disk space but.. in Coding and Web Development; Hi All,
My backups are p-laying up a bit at the moment so just for extra security I have set ...
27th February 2009, 09:41 AM #1
batch copy has error insufficient disk space but..
My backups are p-laying up a bit at the moment so just for extra security I have set up a number of batch files to xcopy users data across to another HD on another machine.
That I can manage with xcopy BUT I am geting an error when it gets to certain users(always the same one) telling me there is insufficient disk space when I do have about 3 TB spare.
Having looked at these users it is because of a saved link in my settings/favourites!
If I move that link and try again it works?
my question is can I bypass this error with either an alternative to xcopy or with some setting within xcopy?
27th February 2009, 09:55 AM #2
Are you adding the /B switch to make it run in backup mode if file copy fails using the normal methods?
Thanks to SYNACK from:
reggiep (27th February 2009)
27th February 2009, 10:03 AM #3
Er no, It is about the only switch I am not using!
Originally Posted by SYNACK
I'm just running a test with an exclude switch, once that is finished I shall investigate.
27th February 2009, 10:06 AM #4
Come to think of it are there any quotas or filetype restrictions on the destination drive, if you are copying with full file ownership this could be the issue as well/insteaf.
Last edited by SYNACK; 27th February 2009 at 10:09 AM.
27th February 2009, 10:07 AM #5
It's not liking the /B switch - Invalid switch!
27th February 2009, 10:22 AM #6
Oops, my bad. I was thinking of robocopy rather than xcopy. A vastly superior app. TBH I would suggest using it instead as it is likely to be faster and has builtin support (when using the /B switch) for volume shadow copy so that you can even backup locked or in use files.
Originally Posted by reggiep
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocopy]robocopy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
27th February 2009, 10:27 AM #7
I'd agree with using robocopy instead of xcopy. The newer versions of xcopy have more useful bits but robocopy is still streets ahead!
If you need to stay with xcopy then add the /c switch - this continues if there's an error (what I suspect is happening is that it's somehow trying to download the linked to web site which could take a while and will fill your disc ...)
With robocopy, I would add /mir /sec /w:1 /r:1 /b /np /log:c:\temp\copy.log switches (mirror from source to destination; copy security; wait 1 second if an error occurs; retry once only; run in backup mode; don't show progress per file; write a log)
27th February 2009, 10:51 AM #8
Cheers guys, I'll look into robocopy, never heard of it before!
26th October 2010, 10:46 AM #9
- Rep Power
I know this thread is massively old but just for anyone else that stumbles across it from Google (as I just have), check out RichCopy too. It's a newer copy tool from Microsoft, the main advantage of it being multi-threaded. I had trouble using xcopy to copy some files between servers, I tried robocopy as suggested by this thread and that couldn't seem to run at all with the paths I was using. RichCopy, however, seems be doing fine at the moment. I'm using an admin share in case anyone stumbles into the same problem, ie. copying from \\server\e$\blahblah to F:\blahblah.
Just thought it might be useful to future readers.
26th October 2010, 01:03 PM #10
RoboCopy is now multi-threaded too (using the /MT switch). The default is 8 threads, but you can go all the way up to 128. RichCopy looks promising, but development on it appears to have stopped and it is still quite buggy (especially when it comes to preserving ACLs between source and destination - I was bitten by that bug ).
Originally Posted by Shuriken1
Another alternative is FastCopy. It's open source and actually really good. It has both a GUI and CLI (in a single EXE) and has lots of really useful features.
- It supports UNICODE and over MAX_PATH (260 byte) file pathnames.
- It automatically selects different methods according to whether Source and DestDir are in the same or different HDD.
Diff HDD - Reading and writing are processed respectively in parallel by separate threads.
Same HDD - Reading is processed until the big buffer fills. When the big buffer filled, writing is started and processed in bulk.
Because reading/writing are processed with no OS cache at all, other applications don't easily become slow.
- It can achieve reading/writing performance that is close to device limit.
- Include/Exclude Filter (UNIX wildcard style) can be specified.
- It runs fast and does not hog resources, because MFC is not used. (Designed using Win32 API and C Runtime only).
- Verification of written file data using MD5 or SHA-1 checksums.
- Wipe & Delete (prevent deleted files reviving) - Rename filename and Overwrite random data before deleting. Alternate stream isn't overwritten. If NSA method is checked in setting dialog, Overwriting Random data process runs two times, and overwriting NULL data process runs once.
- Speed Control (Full Speed, Auto Slow, 90% > 10%, Suspend) - If you feel it is hogging resources, it is recommended to set to "Auto Slow" (if it detects mouse moving/active window changing (and fastcopy window isn't foreground), it is slowed down). If "Full Speed" isn't selected, low process priority class is set.
26th October 2010, 05:50 PM #11
- Rep Power
Yeah, you're right Arthur. I've just left work and have robocopy doing the last folder copy for me overnight. RichCopy was quicker and it was preserving the ACLs but not the ownerships, I couldn't be bothered to work it out so I went back to Robocopy and it worked first time. Must have been making a silly mistake earlier. Anyway, Robocopy seems the way to go. Especially, as you say, it can multi-thread on Win7/Server2008 now (seems to be single thread still on Win 2003). Seems to be the way to go though.
By googlemad in forum Windows
Last Post: 16th October 2010, 12:08 AM
By Stuart_C in forum Windows
Last Post: 13th November 2008, 09:37 PM
By TechSupp in forum Windows
Last Post: 4th October 2008, 10:40 PM
By andy_d in forum Windows
Last Post: 7th June 2008, 10:29 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)