>"David V. Corbin" wrote:
> Rich,
> There are a number of techniques. A simple one (that is fairly accurate and
> free) is to simply list the file count / and total size. This will point out
> a mismatch quite quickly.
Jerome Fine replies:
I realize that you are using Windows NT which would
not allow the following suggestion, but for others that
use Windows 98 SE, I do the following:
Using GHOST, I am able to generate an text file which
contains a list of every file, the modification date, a
32 bit CRC value for the file and the byte size of the file.
This file can also be generated when I make a backup image
of the complete (or any portion) of the files on the hard drive.
The text for about 11,214 files and 1090 directories uses about
900 KBytes. It takes about 5 minutes to backup 2 GBytes
of files and the compressed image file is about 900 MBytes.
When I wish to know exactly which files have changed or
have been deleted or added, I am able to use FC.EXE and
it provides the needed information. Naturally, if there are
more than about a few hundred changes, it starts to get a
bit difficult.
> I also have some tools that basically do the same thing, but more in-depth.
> Please contact me off-list if you wish.
> David V. Corbin
> >>> Subject: Comparing existence of massive number of files
> >>> I just moved most of my collection of on-line data to a
> >>> new server here at home. I want to verify that all files
> >>> have been copied and I didn't miss any
> >>> directories/subdirectories. Basically I did it through a
> >>> drag-and-drop across the network.
> >>> What's the best way to do this? The OS is Windows NT
> >>> (Server) and I'm looking at about 22gb of files of various
> >>> types -- from music to source code.
> >>> Any ideas? I still have the original server on standby
> >>> for this verification before I wipe it clean for sale.
I also have a few tricks that are useful, but they run under
RT-11 under the E11 emulator. I copy the text files, using
PUTR, to a file which E11 makes available.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
--
If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
'at' with the four digits of the current year.
Received on Tue Mar 30 2004 - 21:19:22 BST