![]() It’s why my preferred choice for transferring very large files is bit torrent. Prior to 30), specifying either append option will initiate ![]() Like -append-verify, so if you are interacting with an older rsync (or Note: prior to rsync 3.0.0, the -append option worked (rsync uses a normal, non-appending -inplace transfer for the resend). This works just like the -append option, but the existingĭata on the receiving side is included in the full-file checksumįile to be resent if the final verification step fails ![]() Both the files could be opened and seemed the > windows 7 I have seen a lot of different checksums (in files that were > I don’t think that checking the size and the timestamp is enough. > check if parts of the file had been changed and then just copy that part Wikipedia says something over hashes but is is used to > I’m don’t think that rsync does the same: check the file after copy with (from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar) Time to recover those and transfer to some other media before the Still work without errors - last time I tried was few years ago. It was so reliable that backups sets of 90 floppies made about 1995 It did compression, verification, and forward errorĬorrection. In MsDOS times my preferred backup software came from PCtools > this copying-without-corruption by default. > The zealot side of me would toss out something like, "Linux does all of ![]() No, a verify run has to be done after the backup has finished, and theĬache flushed. I haven't seen an NTFS checksum error in well over a decade, it's pretty much a non-issue these days, at least for me.> A second run, then, this time with checksums for verification. It's a little more involved I suppose but I've copied terabytes of files (millions of 'em in some instances) and never had issues with just plain old vanilla Windows copy operations. Generates a checksum file (with various hash methods of your choice) containing all the hashes for whatever you're checking on, then I do the copy operation, copy the checksum file over and test. If the data must be actually verified before and after the copy operation I create SHA1 checkums of files or entire folders of content using HashCheck which is a very cool shell property extension for the Properties page from a context click (right button) for files/folders. And since it uses the Windows APIs for file copy operation, it's not really any faster than just a typical copy operation - it just offers the checksum thing and that kills the idea of it being faster anyway since it's a secondary verify pass after the copy operation is done. I finally gave up in my attempts and let Windows handle things natively - NTFS has error correction and checksums natively and will bitch if things don't copy over correctly, at least in my experience. I like the idea of Teracopy but in my actual use of it, most notably when transferring large quantities of files - not necessarily very large files but a large number of unique ones - it invariably crashes at some point in the process and it just pisses me right the hell off. All the more reason to use Teracopy gents.ĮDIT: I am seeing anywhere form 50-500+ problem files from 20,000-30,000 files transferred. Granted, this is a Seagate to Toshiba transfer so I think this 3TB Seagate is one of those shit drives from the floods but still. I look back and the CRC match so i guess it re-transferred automatically and fixed it?ĮDIT:Yea i am seeing a lot of failed transfers. Still a little confused on what it does on a CRC mismatch. No wonder in the past i was missing files and had corruptions.:/ If i only knew of this program 5-10 years ago :'( It wasn't only related to my OCed and tweaked desktop so i know my desktop wasn't s this program. This thing can even freeze my OS on my stock 1650v3 with ECC RAM so it has some issues in regards to how its programmed. I have saved 100s if not 1000s of files now from the couple million of files i have moved around over the last month with trying to encrypt and consolidate files, backups, and recoveries. The program has some stability issues and can glitch out and your trying to figure out what the hell it just did with files that didn't copy right but its really nice though when your transferring 500,000 files and you don't want to loose anything. So teracopy is a bit glitchy and unstable when your transferring 100-1000s of GB but i see CRC mismatch a freaking shit ton.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |