I am trying to copy data from a Windows Server 2012 R2 to a QNAP NAS(ext4).
I use the
/MIR switch and I want to keep the ACLs on files and sub-folders unchanged.
The problem is that the ACLs in the source folder and target folder are different. I tried something like that:
robocopy <source> <target> /MIR /copy:DATS /R:5 /MT:24 /W:1 /NP /ZB /M /V /XD *$RECYCLE.BIN*
also I have long path names it's over 290 C .
Note : no one in other communities gave me a good answer till now !
KAdam , you can't call it a clone and want different permissions.
try don't use mir flag and open the link that I mentioned . for the the problem long path ,are they all in subdir's or spread out all over the place? You could actually do the above for these also, however, if they're all over the place, creating 100+ separate jobs would be counterproductive. If they are within the same tree structure, create a batch that starts further down into the subdir, then you can exclude that in the batch file that copies the rest of the structure, if that makes sense. The switch to exclude a folder is /XD dir (so, it would look like /XD \\server\share\sub1\sub2\sub3) which will definitely shorten your path names. in the other hand if you are not familiar with command line or powershell , I recommend you to use one of these GUI copying programs which I used before securecopy quest , gs richcopy360 for WINs and rsync for linux , all can easily solve the proplem of long path names , clone issue and other powerful copying tools .
thanks Jolia again , an Experienced friend informed me that it your solution is smart ,but when we tried to apply your solution we found that it will take too much time so we switched to gs richcopy360 , it works well , solved the problem off ACLs and also the problem of long path names .
Hi JoliaJon , thanks again for your recommendation, we have a situation here in my company that all employees will work from home because of coronavirus and all employees will send tasks via gs richcopy360 standard from home to our server in HQ, my question is, is standard enough in this issue or should we use the enterprise version? because we do not need any future problems.
Hi again JoliaJon , thanks for your advice, backing here again to share my experience with you, we switched to the Enterprise version because there is a helpful feature called Byte level replication which transfers just the changed data in a file when synchronizing, instead of the entire file. This is useful in saving bandwidth, especially when dealing with large files.
Hello folks! To the member of organizations who are still running their Atlassian applications on the server, we are on the side of the bridge, and if we need to sail the boat with confidence either...
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!Find an event
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!
Unfortunately there are no Community Events near you at the moment.Host an event
You're one step closer to meeting fellow Atlassian users at your local event. Learn more about Community Events