Fastest way to exactly copy many files, Amiga-Side?

[rsn8887]

What is the fastest way on the Amiga to copy many files and folders recursively, with attributes etc.?

I tried directory opus 4 and 5, but it is slow and sometimes seems to truncate filenames etc.

Maybe the copy command on the CLI is better? Which arguments shall I use?

On my MacBook, I use rsync.

[Amiga4000]

Since you asked "What is the fastest way on the Amiga to copy many files and folders recursively, with attributes etc.?

I have passed this on many times... and use it myself. Works great. UNCROMPRESSED is faster.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From mfilos.....

http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=673448&postcount=2

LHA utility is enough mate.

Just open a CLI and type:
Code:
1> DH0:
1> lha -aezrx a DH1:backup.lha #?

That will create a file called "backup.lha" under partition DH1 (assuming the partition you want to backup is partition DH0) maintaining all protection bits etc.
The archive is not compressed so it will be rather large. If you want to make it compressed also just replace "z" with "Z" in lha options of the command provided.
Then of course you can transfer the one lha file via FTP or any other way anywhere

To restore the archive anytime just use the following command:
Code:
1> DH0:
1> lha x DH1:backup.lha

[rsn8887]

But I don't want to have one .lha file, I want each file and folder to appear on destination.

[Solo Kazuki]

It depends from many things.

First of all if something is truncated, You have something not right. It should not alter data in any way with proper system and settings. Check file manager if it supports longer filenames.

Second it depends from filesystem. OFS is slowest, FFS is little faster but not too much. If You want good speed it should be SFS or PFS. I had PFS3 on my Amiga Classic and disk operations were rather fast.

What CPU You have, it depends also from CPU - the faster the better. And even some FastRAM speedup disk ops.

You can also try to add buffers to device, it should speed up it.

[jPV]

Originally Posted by rsn8887

I tried directory opus 4 and 5, but it is slow and sometimes seems to truncate filenames etc.

DOpus may have default filename length around 30 characters, have you checked that if you're using filesystems that support longer filenames? In DOpus5 you can find the setting in Settings->Environment->Directories->Maximum Filename Length. Set it as 107 characters, for example.

Maybe the copy command on the CLI is better? Which arguments shall I use?

Yes, I think the Copy command from the shell is the most failproof solution in normal cases (no softlinks). Use the CLONE argument to get exact copies of the files.

Something like this...

Copy source:#? destination:path/ ALL CLONE QUIET

Then check the directory sizes, for example in DOpus, that they are exactly the same size in bytes in the source and destination to be sure that everything got copied correctly.

If you have soft links in the directory structure, then the Copy command isn't a good solution, but you have to find some 3rd party program for copying them correctly. BackUp, MirrorCopy, etc come handy then.

[daxb]

As already mentioned by others. DOpus should work. If not something else is wrong (setting, filesystem, ...). If you want to copy only files that have changed like rsync then use Backup or MirrorCopy.

[sTe]

Ill just make a note here, DOPUS has filesystem limits compared to CLI. I did some tests a month or two ago, to see how many characters a folder could have, and with how many nested folders inside could be ... CLI can go on forever, DOPUS I guess they decided to limit the amount of chars for tracking / memory usage?.

[daxb]

What DOpus version you are talking about? How many characters for a folder worked for you and where is the limit? How many sub directories? Give us examples/facts so we can test it on our systems. A small shell script that does all the things in RAM would be nice.

[rsn8887]

Thanks for all the help! In the end I was successful with the copy command:
copy ALL FROM #? TO DH1:
worked perfectly

Yes, after I had some problems with Directory Opus 4 a year or so ago (truncating filenames, not copying files with many many subdirectories), I don't trust Directory Opus for this task anymore. I vaguely remember also having similar problems with latest Directory Opus 5 Magellan, but I might be wrong about that.

[daxb]

DOpus 5.82 works fine here. There is a (cosmetic) problem with truncated filename length in text lister. A lister buffer refresh can solve it.

[sTe]

I was using : Directory Opus 5 release 5.5 - Notes 20th August 1996.

I dont have my notes on me, but I think I was using DOPUS to create a folder :

012345678901234567890123456780

and then going inside and creating the same folder ... I think 8 times?

then going to CLI

makedir 012345678901234567890123456780
cd 012345678901234567890123456780

up arrow a few times, and you can re-run each line again.

and you will notice CLI, can go forever.

I can do some tests in a few weeks, at the moment in the middle of a project.

Originally Posted by daxb

What DOpus version you are talking about? How many characters for a folder worked for you and where is the limit? How many sub directories? Give us examples/facts so we can test it on our systems. A small shell script that does all the things in RAM would be nice.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by rsn8887

Thanks for all the help! In the end I was successful with the copy command:
copy ALL FROM #? TO DH1:
worked perfectly

If you forgot CLONE then it's not perfect.

[daxb]

I guess that is a CD and max command line length problem. With DOpus 5 and on CLI (3.1) I can greate 8 folders of 30 char length. The next (9) makedir throws an error ("can't create directory" or "already exists"). The ninth directory is shown in CLI "12" (DOpus 5) and "123456" (CLI). If I do a CD before makedir the directories are created without errors like you mentioned.

[sonninnos]

ZShell is great: "copy -r DH0: DH1:"

[idrougge]

Why is ZShell great?

[sonninnos]

Originally Posted by idrougge

Why is ZShell great?

It delivers some sweet unixlinux feels. I boot straight to ZShell and not WB, because I like typing more than mouse action. Also easy to make function key macros (alias) for those often used commands.

Here is the convincing bits from the readme:

Features:
* Freeware, no payment required !
* Usage is similar (or better) to the standard AmigaDOS shell.
* Has 68 built-in commands including all often needed commands,
so no disk access is necessary.
eg. list, dir, cd, assign, delete, copy, move, path, info, type
* About 36K small (pure assembler code)
* Starting from Workbench (!) or CLI. No installation needed.
* ANONYMOUS PIPES. You can choose between real and pseudo pipes.
* Fast FILENAME COMPLETION by simply pressing TAB; shows all matches.
* REVIEW buffer to see again what scrolled out of the window.
* MENUS for convenient use.
* Some commands and debugging features for PROGRAMMERS.
* ONLINE HELP function and AmigaGuide documentation with examples.
* Support of OS2.0+ and OS3.0+ specific stuff.
* LOCALIZED using standard shell's catalog file.
* Can open its own screen
* Wild cards and recursive processing.
* Real RUN and NEWCLI command that reenters ZShell quickly.
* Application-Window/-Icon
* 100% script compatibility
* DIR and LIST both sort (by default) and show file sizes.

[sTe]

Yeah I couldn't remember the exact numbers Thanks for confirming though.

I guess each programmer had their own ideas ... back in the day ... who ever is going to need more than 8 nested folders of 30 chars?

Originally Posted by daxb

I guess that is a CD and max command line length problem. With DOpus 5 and on CLI (3.1) I can greate 8 folders of 30 char length. The next (9) makedir throws an error ("can't create directory" or "already exists"). The ninth directory is shown in CLI "12" (DOpus 5) and "123456" (CLI). If I do a CD before makedir the directories are created without errors like you mentioned.

[Bren McGuire]

Originally Posted by sonninnos

It delivers some sweet unixlinux feels. I boot straight to ZShell and not WB, because I like typing more than mouse action. Also easy to make function key macros (alias) for those often used commands.

How does it compare to KingCON?

OP, I found that the fastest way is the CLI. Dir managers seem to slow down with large file operations.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by sonninnos

It delivers some sweet unixlinux feels. I boot straight to ZShell and not WB, because I like typing more than mouse action. Also easy to make function key macros (alias) for those often used commands.

I was obviously not communicating clearly. What I wondered was why it was a better alternative for copying files.

[sonninnos]

Originally Posted by Bren McGuire

How does it compare to KingCON?

Never tried KingCON, so I can't tell. Only once seen someone use it on a video and the tab filename completion seemed much clunkier.

Originally Posted by idrougge

I was obviously not communicating clearly. What I wondered was why it was a better alternative for copying files.

I did provide a command example, which does the same as "ALL FROM TO CLONE", but with a simpler syntax. I doubt there is any speed difference in action, though of course measuring is always welcome, if anyone cares enough.