Problem archiving from shares between 4.01 and 6.01
 

Hi,

I've just upgraded from 4.01 to 6.01 and now many of my archive jobs no longer work.

The jobs archive data into a single zip from shares on different machines.

Here is the job under 4.01:

As you can see, the machine names and share names have been incorporated into the folder structure.

This is the same job under 6.01:

Is there any way of making this work under version 6?

Thanks,
Badders

Hi!
I have made some tests on my own enviroment and I have also been successfull in recreating this problem.

The problem appears in PACL 6.01 when you have more than one line in the listfile.

Example of listfile that gives the same error message as you have:
But if I remove one of the rows resulting in only one row in the listfile, then everything works ok.
It looks like there can only be one line in the listfile or you will get this error. I need confirmation from the Administrators if this is correct or not.

I suggest you test with only one line in your listfile for PACL 6.01 to confirm if you get the same results as I have.

I have tested this with PACL 6.01 on Windows XP with SP3.

Kind Regards
Micke

Hi Micke,

Thanks for looking into this.
Agreed - It runs, but does not produce the correct results - the machine name and share name are not included in the archive.

It looks there are two issues:

1) Multiple lines in the list file:

2) Storage of share names:

The above tests we're run XP SP3.

Under Windows Server 2003 R2 the results for multiple rows in the listfile appears to work (but not storage of shares):

I use PACL extensively for backing-up multiple machines so this is a show stopper for me. Let me know if I can help further? (more tests, beta builds etc.)

Thanks,
Badders

Hi guys,

Let me confirm this:

so there are 2 issues:
1. You want drive/share included into the path
2. If we have multiple share paths in list file, it will not work. Only single line works?

thanks!

Hi spwolf,

For me it's the "\\<machine>\<sharename>\" which need storing as folders - the same as in 4.01. I'm not sure what you mean by "drive"

Correct

Thanks.

i think reason that worked in 4.01 was that it was not properly parsed out, while now we have properly parsed it out at runtime ;-).

So basically, we will have to add option to include drive and share name in the future ;-)

I'm afraid that doesn't make sense.

You've removed a clever and sensible piece of functionality which worked perfectly in the earlier version. Now you're calling this functionality a bug :mad:

Which will be when? So far I've spent money on 6.01 and found it to be unusable.

Hi!
I can confirm that this listfiles works correctly in Windows XP Sp3 using PACL 6.01

Using driveletters
Using \\<machine>\<sharename>\
When running with a single line filelist that have either driveletter or \\<machine>\<sharename>\ I get a successful result

If the listfile has more than one row, it doesn't work. I get the same error with driveletters and with \\<machine>\<sharename>\

I think I can help you with this, by creating a script that will give you the same functionality in PACL 6.01 as you have in PACL 4.01. I can't guarantee that it will work, but I'll make some tests to see if it works or not.

This will be a workaround until a update of PACL 6.01 is available.

I'll get back with more info when I have finished the script.

Kind Regards
Micke

I actually missed that, but I see now that the same thing happens for me. Now I'm not so sure that a script actually will solve it, but I'll give it a try.

Kind Regards
Micke

It was an bug, that had functionality that you liked ;-).
It was one of the "bugs" that other users reported in PACL 4.x. Setting for saving drive letters and network shares is usually an extra option in compression applications, not an default one.

If you would preffer to use PACL 4.x, we will gladly issue an refund for you. Just send us an email to support@conexware with your order number and refference this thread. It is just that PACL 6 is really several magnitudes better product than PACL 4.

Both "issues" are not complicated to do, but I can not guarantee that version of PACL 6.02 will be out tomorrow. We have to finish other things we are doing right now and then move to PACL.

We had PACL in testing for this exact reason for a year and nobody reported anything in past quite few months. We do rely on our users to tell us how they use the product ;-). I am glad that more people are now telling us how they use PACL, thats really very helpful!

thank you...

Personally I didn't even think of that the drive letters and network shares wasn't saved in the path for the files when creating archives. If this will be implemented in a future version of PACL maybe it then should be with an option if it's to be included or not during archive creation.

What's the idea of using a list file if it can only have one row in it? I haven't used list files before because I haven't used PACL for so long time yet. However IMHO there should be possible to have more than one line of paths to the files in a list file. Otherwise you can just put the path directly in the command when running PACOMP.

Kind Regards
Micke

yeah, as i said, it would be an additional option. When it comes to PACL, people use it in various ways, so always good to have options.


As to the list issue, it is an bug, not intended behaviour!

Hi Badders!
Here's a script for use with PACL 6.01. It will solve half of your problem by making it possible to have more than one row in a list file.

I have made it very simple for me, the script assumes that you have a maximum of 10 rows in the list file. It's very easy to add more if you need to.

Here's the code for the script. Copy the code and save it as PACOMP_List.vbs or whatever name you prefer.

I don't know if you have any use of this. I only wrote it because it's fun writing scripts as workarounds for problems :)

The script is only tested with PACL 6.01 on Windows XP Sp3.

Kind Regards
Micke

For what it is worth, I have only used @list with filenames (not folders) and then multiple lines works OK
(easier as the names don't have to be quoted when spaces are in path/name).

Micke is spoiling us with his scripts ;-).

Thanks, now I feel an obligation to continue writing scripts for use with PACL when users report new problems :)

Kind Regards
Micke

Wow - so much interest :)

First of all, thanks for everyone's contributions and especially Micke for the script. I've downloaded it and it works fine for issue 2, "multiple rows in listfile":

Regarding the second, and more important, issue for me, I'd be happy with an option to store the machine & share names. Options are good :D

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether a developers "tidying up", affecting functionality of the product, is right. If other users are reporting it as a bug then a decision has to be made, one way or the other - which is what's happened. Unfortunately, this time, I was at the wrong end of the decision.

Regarding a refund? I don't one. I think I've had real value for money from PACL and wish to contribute to it's continued development. Version 6 does offer so much more (as you say) and I like the way coneXware operates. I do feel a little guilty that I didn't test the version 6 beta as these issues would have surfaced much earlier.

Keep up the good work guys and here's looking forward to 6.02. Let me know if I can help with testing etc.

Badders

thank you badders! Better check our future betas so there wont be any surprises ;-).

As i said before, we warmly welcome more advanced users for PACL to the forums, so you can tell us better how you use PACL. Without that, we are just guessing!

thanks.

Hi Badders!
It's nice to hear that the script works for you. As always there's a risk of something missing and you don't see it until someone else is testing it.

Kind Regards
Micke

Ouch!
Certainly will. I'll have a think and let you know.

(Thank you again Micke for your work on the script alternative)

Cheers,
Badders

;-)

Hi!
I'm working on a new script for use with PACL and during the tests of it I discovered some new information regarding the problem described in this thread.

I have tested this with 2 different list files
List file with one row (Listfile_Singlerow.txt)
List file with two rows (Listfile_Doublerow.txt)
Running the command with single line list row
Running the same command with double line list row
Now if I change the command in PACOMP from -p to -P and run it again with double line list row

As you can see, the results is now successful. The problem appears when you are using the -p parameter in the command, but if you are using the -P parameter instead, multiple rows in list files works without any problem.

I haven't tested this with \\<machine>\<sharename>\ in list files but most likely it will work the same depending on if you use the -P parameter.

I believe we can remove issue 2 from the list, however I would like to know why it works with -P but not with -p

Kind Regards
Micke

p|P : store relative Pathnames|store full Pathnames


;-)

Yes, I know that, but the error message doesn't indicate that the parameter p is the problem.

Maybe this should be mentioned in the documentation of PACL that the command -p in combination with a list file could cause error messages if the list file contains more than one row.

Kind Regards
Micke

but thats an bug ;-).... so in next update, it will be fixed.

Thanks, the reason for bringing this up again was that the first test indicated that there was always error messages when using list files with multiple lines. When I found out that it worked with more than one line by using the P parameter I thought that maybe it wasn't a bug but incorrect parameter setting.

Anyway, thanks for the information. Looking forward the next update of PACL

Kind Regards
Micke

No it doesn't - unfortunately.

It doesn't come up with the '*** ERROR (): DefaultDir' message (as it does with -p) but what you do get, somehow, is duplicate files as shown above.

Bug? ;)

My guess is that you have the same directory and file structure in both computer shares. The files will be added to the archive with full path, but the path is the exactly the same on both computer shares.

I'll probably be able to reproduce this when using different drive letters if the path and files is the same on both drives.

I have also been successful with use of the -p parameter on multiple line list files on some occasions. I need to do some more tests to see how I can recreate a successful results with the -p parameter and multiple line list files.

Kind Regards
Micke

I get the same results when I use drive letters in list file.

Listfile_Doublerow.txt
The duplicate files is logic because the path is exactly the same in both rows except for the drive letter. It's a bug because obvious nobody have tried using same path and filenames but on different machines and/or drive letters before. :)

Kind Regards
Micke

PACL 6.02 RC:
http://www.powerarchiver.com/test/release10/pacl602.exe

Please check your reported issues and see if they are fixed or not... thanks!