- Welcome to Copy Handler Community Forum.
Recent posts
#1
Discussion about bugs/issues / two bugs one question
Last post by Temporal - July 13, 2022, 02:36:24 PMSorry for being short on the topic, both bugs are in relation with the website, one of them here on the forums, hence the short but certain to work topic:
1)The "donate" button is broken;
2)If anyone adds quotes or quotation marks on the topic question, the link gets broken (hence why I cannot see what was answered on the question made in 2016 what does append mean or does);
3)What does append mean? The help was't helpful at all - sorry.
Thanks!
1)The "donate" button is broken;
2)If anyone adds quotes or quotation marks on the topic question, the link gets broken (hence why I cannot see what was answered on the question made in 2016 what does append mean or does);
3)What does append mean? The help was't helpful at all - sorry.
Thanks!
#2
General support / Move and delete
Last post by deadmort - March 22, 2022, 08:16:00 AMAfter I move files/folders from one disc to another I was expecting the source files to be deleted but they are not.
Please can someone explain to me how I get them to be deleted them?
Thanks
Please can someone explain to me how I get them to be deleted them?
Thanks
#3
General discussion and feedback / Re: HDD totally fragmented aft...
Last post by supere989 - December 03, 2021, 03:52:41 PMThis is actually a symptom of the way the operating system is handing the data, not the program itself.
When you enable multi-threaded transfers, the target operating system writes data as it received/buffered/flushed. Windows doesn't care where it puts it on the drive, as long as it can get it out of the write buffer fast enough based on where the platter heads are located on disc. SSD's don't have this problem because access latency isn't an issue.
If CopyHandler had a Client/Server Mode, then it could control the way in which data flows to the disk per thread by controlling the flush sequence of the write buffer. You would have to run the software at the source and the target for a function like this to work, as Windows is too stupid to do it correctly.
When you enable multi-threaded transfers, the target operating system writes data as it received/buffered/flushed. Windows doesn't care where it puts it on the drive, as long as it can get it out of the write buffer fast enough based on where the platter heads are located on disc. SSD's don't have this problem because access latency isn't an issue.
If CopyHandler had a Client/Server Mode, then it could control the way in which data flows to the disk per thread by controlling the flush sequence of the write buffer. You would have to run the software at the source and the target for a function like this to work, as Windows is too stupid to do it correctly.
#4
General support / Re: Bug in directory create wi...
Last post by Ixen - September 27, 2021, 05:36:36 PMHi. Thanks!
I have reproduced the problem locally. Will try to find the culprit as soon as I find some time.
Edit: I've filed a bug https://dev.copyhandler.com/browse/CH-374 - you can track progress there.
I have reproduced the problem locally. Will try to find the culprit as soon as I find some time.
Edit: I've filed a bug https://dev.copyhandler.com/browse/CH-374 - you can track progress there.
#5
General support / Bug in directory create with s...
Last post by large - August 29, 2021, 07:15:50 PMHi! Thank you for a great tool, been using it a lot.
I noticed on v1.50.28.0 that some directories are created wrong, in some special cases.
On my "google photo extraction" I had some directories called "C:\Google Photos\2013-10-05 - \IMG_20131005_124211.jpg" but the directory creation for this path was "C:\Google Photos\2013-10-05 -\" meaning that the last space is not included by Copy Handler.
Making my log-file full of these
Hopefully this is the right place to ask or inform the developers.
I noticed on v1.50.28.0 that some directories are created wrong, in some special cases.
On my "google photo extraction" I had some directories called "C:\Google Photos\2013-10-05 - \IMG_20131005_124211.jpg" but the directory creation for this path was "C:\Google Photos\2013-10-05 -\" meaning that the last space is not included by Copy Handler.
Making my log-file full of these
Quote2021-06-03 21:20:36.781128 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Encountered an error while opening file for writing. Error: 3 (handle: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, path : C:\Google Photos\2012-06-17 - \IMG_20120617_134803-edited.jpg, no-buffering : 1)
2021-06-03 21:20:36.781128 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Error 3 while trying to retrieve freshly-created flag for file C:\Google Photos\2012-06-17 - \IMG_20120617_134803-edited.jpg
2021-06-12 22:33:35.803070 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Encountered an error while opening file for writing. Error: 3 (handle: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, path : C:\Google Photos\2012-06-17 - \IMG_20120617_134803.jpg, no-buffering : 1)
2021-06-12 22:33:35.803070 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Error 3 while trying to retrieve freshly-created flag for file C:\Google Photos\2012-06-17 - \IMG_20120617_134803.jpg
2021-06-12 22:33:35.974950 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Encountered an error while opening file for writing. Error: 3 (handle: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, path : C:\Google Photos\2012-06-17 - \IMG_20120617_134803.jpg.json, no-buffering : 1)
2021-06-12 22:33:35.974950 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Error 3 while trying to retrieve freshly-created flag for file C:\Google Photos\2012-06-17 - \IMG_20120617_134803.jpg.json
2021-06-12 22:33:36.006200 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Encountered an error while opening file for writing. Error: 3 (handle: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, path : C:\Google Photos\2012-06-17 - \metadata.json, no-buffering : 1)
2021-06-12 22:33:36.006200 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Error 3 while trying to retrieve freshly-created flag for file C:\Google Photos\2012-06-17 - \metadata.json
2021-06-12 22:33:42.975126 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Encountered an error while opening file for writing. Error: 3 (handle: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, path : C:\Google Photos\2012-07-14 - \IMG_20120714_130712-edited.jpg, no-buffering : 1)
2021-06-12 22:33:42.975126 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Error 3 while trying to retrieve freshly-created flag for file C:\Google Photos\2012-07-14 - \IMG_20120714_130712-edited.jpg
2021-06-12 22:33:43.037627 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Encountered an error while opening file for writing. Error: 3 (handle: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, path : C:\Google Photos\2012-07-14 - \IMG_20120714_130712.jpg, no-buffering : 1)
2021-06-12 22:33:43.037627 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Error 3 while trying to retrieve freshly-created flag for file C:\Google Photos\2012-07-14 - \IMG_20120714_130712.jpg
2021-06-12 22:33:43.053295 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Encountered an error while opening file for writing. Error: 3 (handle: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, path : C:\Google Photos\2012-07-14 - \IMG_20120714_130712.jpg.json, no-buffering : 1)
2021-06-12 22:33:43.053295 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Error 3 while trying to retrieve freshly-created flag for file C:\Google Photos\2012-07-14 - \IMG_20120714_130712.jpg.json
2021-06-12 22:33:43.068918 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Encountered an error while opening file for writing. Error: 3 (handle: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, path : C:\Google Photos\2012-07-14 - \metadata.json, no-buffering : 1)
2021-06-12 22:33:43.068918 [error] Filesystem-File[11176]: Error 3 while trying to retrieve freshly-created flag for file C:\Google Photos\2012-07-14 - \metadata.json
Hopefully this is the right place to ask or inform the developers.
#6
Ideas / Re: Checksum validation?
Last post by Ixen - August 10, 2021, 02:33:19 PMThank you. Checksum validation is the most requested feature as far as I can tell. Unfortunately this is also a bit complex to implement properly and requires more time than I currently have available.
#7
Ideas / Checksum validation?
Last post by N0_W4RN1NG - July 28, 2021, 08:30:08 AMHi,
I just found out about the copy handler project and replaced teracopy, and I am very happy that I did.
One feature that copy handler lacks compared to teracopy is checksum validation of files, and it would be very useful to have that as an option to show that in the windows explorer context menu.
I thought that perhaps this was not included because it's not strictly in the domain of copy handling, and the job of validating checksums should be left to a dedicated application, and because I'm new to the project, I decided not to create a Jira ticket for this until I can confirm.
I think checksum validation can be useful when copying files from ftp servers, network drives, and removable USB medias for a few reasons: 1.) to verify file is not corrupted, and 2.) to verify that the file is the original untampered version 3.) to help the user decide if they want to copy/use it. It can also be useful to the user in general.
I'll throw in a couple of possible ways to implement this, but others may have better ideas:
1. Add context menu within each of: (CH) Copy/Paste/Move/-> Verify Checksums then Move. Pop up window with table of file names and columns to input checksums. (Unsure about Special copy/paste/move since I haven't been able to get those working)
2. Add a column next to the file names within the Status window where the user can paste checksums so that they are verified before/after completion.
3. Add context menu just to validate checksums.
Thank you for your time and consideration! I love this project.
I just found out about the copy handler project and replaced teracopy, and I am very happy that I did.
One feature that copy handler lacks compared to teracopy is checksum validation of files, and it would be very useful to have that as an option to show that in the windows explorer context menu.
I thought that perhaps this was not included because it's not strictly in the domain of copy handling, and the job of validating checksums should be left to a dedicated application, and because I'm new to the project, I decided not to create a Jira ticket for this until I can confirm.
I think checksum validation can be useful when copying files from ftp servers, network drives, and removable USB medias for a few reasons: 1.) to verify file is not corrupted, and 2.) to verify that the file is the original untampered version 3.) to help the user decide if they want to copy/use it. It can also be useful to the user in general.
I'll throw in a couple of possible ways to implement this, but others may have better ideas:
1. Add context menu within each of: (CH) Copy/Paste/Move/-> Verify Checksums then Move. Pop up window with table of file names and columns to input checksums. (Unsure about Special copy/paste/move since I haven't been able to get those working)
2. Add a column next to the file names within the Status window where the user can paste checksums so that they are verified before/after completion.
3. Add context menu just to validate checksums.
Thank you for your time and consideration! I love this project.
#8
General support / Re: Updatecheck reports new ve...
Last post by botcherO - July 20, 2021, 05:24:40 PMThanks, updatecheck now reports i have the latest version installed!
#9
Ideas / Re: Automatic Retry with confi...
Last post by Ixen - July 20, 2021, 03:48:59 PMThanks for the suggestion. Something close started to appear in CH 1.50beta1 (although is only partially implemented). You can define a feedback rule to automatically retry when an error is encountered.
It does not allow to specify retry interval though and currently is only available in "Enter copy parameters..." dialog box and in task definition files.
It does not allow to specify retry interval though and currently is only available in "Enter copy parameters..." dialog box and in task definition files.
#10
General forum topics / Re: Improve USB flash drive pe...
Last post by Ixen - July 20, 2021, 03:42:22 PMIs it slow when reading or writing to usb drive?
Currently CH write speed might be limited by the way it writes data to a file.
Currently CH write speed might be limited by the way it writes data to a file.
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk