File and Folder backup


Author
Message
Ian Galyer
Ian Galyer
New Member
New Member (2 reputation)New Member (2 reputation)New Member (2 reputation)New Member (2 reputation)New Member (2 reputation)New Member (2 reputation)New Member (2 reputation)New Member (2 reputation)New Member (2 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1, Visits: 8
Is there any way of selecting more one folder to backup.
For every folder to backup you have to go through a lot of stages.
What about having check box to select folders or allowing ctrl & select

Cheers Ian
jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.4K, Visits: 25K
Unfortunately no, and there's a Wish List thread requesting a pick-list navigation tree method of defining F&F jobs, which would not only allow faster folder selection but also make including/excluding subfolders a lot easier.  I think the reason for the current design is that the include/exclude settings are per-folder rather than job-wide, so by only allowing one folder to be added at a time, Macrium shows those settings for each new folder.

Still, @Nick it might be handy if the large Source area was set up as a drag and drop target.  Any folders added that way could just the default include/exclude settings applied.  And while experimenting with this, I actually discovered a reproducible crash condition that I'll be PMing you about.

Lars
Lars
New Member
New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 45
jphughan - 18 January 2018 9:55 PM
Unfortunately no, and there's a Wish List thread requesting a pick-list navigation tree method of defining F&F jobs, which would not only allow faster folder selection but also make including/excluding subfolders a lot easier.  I think the reason for the current design is that the include/exclude settings are per-folder rather than job-wide, so by only allowing one folder to be added at a time, Macrium shows those settings for each new folder.

Still, @Nick it might be handy if the large Source area was set up as a drag and drop target.  Any folders added that way could just the default include/exclude settings applied.  And while experimenting with this, I actually discovered a reproducible crash condition that I'll be PMing you about.


This really is a significant defect in Reflect. I made this request multiple times over the years and still nothing, absolutely no effort to improve the folder/file selection process. When the folder selector/picker dialog is display Reflect can't even return the last folder selected in the tree during a single session of Reflect. The coding to remember the path during the same session wouldn't take more than 60 seconds. The product is effectively unusable when it comes to needing to backup more than a few folders and or files. Frankly, I don't get it and I sure don't get the heavy resistance in implementing and enhanced folder and file include/exclude process. Even in the Corporate environment who wants to backup hundreds of TBs of data if you only need a few hundred MBs if the other data is considered completely irrelevant. Reflect excluding the folder/file selection is a solid 8/10 but when folder/file selection is a necessity becomes a 3/10. Not only does it become a waste time but the probability of making an error is extremely high.

jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.4K, Visits: 25K
I have no inside knowledge here, but having thought about this one more since it was originally posted, I suspect the reason for the current interface may be driven by the underlying XML job file that gets generated.  The XML file lists each folder as an individual entity, so if a pick list tree were implemented, I can see "translating" pic list selections into the current XML language being very difficult, particularly in fancier cases such as wanting to select an entire folder and then omit one subfolder, i.e. have the "entire folder" selection apply to any new subfolders that get created later, as opposed to individually selecting each current subfolder except for the one you wanted to omit.  And then there's the fact that the include/exclude filters in the interface and the XML definition file are are currently per-folder, not global to the entire job.  I can see that being useful or even necessary in some cases, but it's another aspect that would be difficult to "translate" into a pick list selection mechanism.

Of course redesigning the F&F interface and the XML to accommodate all of this is possible, but that's no longer a simple effort, and that then raises the question of what to do with all of the existing XML files existing users would be bringing to this hypothetical new version of Reflect, especially if they prefer the current way.  Don't get me wrong, a pick list would be far preferable for my own use case, but I can see the challenges of getting there from the current state as opposed to building it in a world the current deployment doesn't exist.  And maybe some people really need to include/exclude certain file types only from certain folders in their overall selection, which I can see being difficult to implement with a pick list interface.

Lars
Lars
New Member
New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 45
jphughan - 7 May 2018 3:33 PM
I have no inside knowledge here, but having thought about this one more since it was originally posted, I suspect the reason for the current interface may be driven by the underlying XML job file that gets generated.  The XML file lists each folder as an individual entity, so if a pick list tree were implemented, I can see "translating" pic list selections into the current XML language being very difficult, particularly in fancier cases such as wanting to select an entire folder and then omit one subfolder, i.e. have the "entire folder" selection apply to any new subfolders that get created later, as opposed to individually selecting each current subfolder except for the one you wanted to omit.  And then there's the fact that the include/exclude filters in the interface and the XML definition file are are currently per-folder, not global to the entire job.  I can see that being useful or even necessary in some cases, but it's another aspect that would be difficult to "translate" into a pick list selection mechanism.

Of course redesigning the F&F interface and the XML to accommodate all of this is possible, but that's no longer a simple effort, and that then raises the question of what to do with all of the existing XML files existing users would be bringing to this hypothetical new version of Reflect, especially if they prefer the current way.  Don't get me wrong, a pick list would be far preferable for my own use case, but I can see the challenges of getting there from the current state as opposed to building it in a world the current deployment doesn't exist.  And maybe some people really need to include/exclude certain file types only from certain folders in their overall selection, which I can see being difficult to implement with a pick list interface.

In short there is absolutely no reason why the UI cannot significantly be improved to accommodate rapid selection using the current constraints supported. I do not see any limitations for prior, current or future implementations in regards to XML. My primary complaint is the UI is overtly cumbersome and difficult to use, that's the whole point of GUI environments. There is absolutely no reason why the folder selector dialog always returns to the root.

I'm unable to backup up the following folders and file (simulated simplified structure):

Z:\Level A\Group A\

The requirement is to backup of EVERYTHING (all folders / subfolders and all files in the above paths, EXCEPT for all folders/subfolders/files: )

Z:\Level A\Group A\Section C
...
Z:\Level A\Group A\Section Z

Edited 7 May 2018 4:42 PM by Zardoz2293
jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.4K, Visits: 25K
Ah ok.  Yes, when it comes to folders, your only choices are either using an exclude mask or disabling subfolder backup entirely; there's no explicit include mask for subfolders like there is for files.  In terms of a workaround just to get something usable now though, I guess it depends on how simplified your above example is relative to the actual use case, and I fully grant that this could be a lot easier with a different interface, but in the configuration shown below, the first entry would back up any files at the root of Group A, but nothing in any subfolders, and then the next entries would cover everything in the subfolders you actually did want (although not any newly created subfolders).  Based on your example, it sounds like you want to exclude the majority of your subfolders and you only have a few that you want to back up, but you want EVERYTHING from those few folders?  If so, then this should achieve that, with the level of effort dependent on how many subfolders you actually do want backed up.



Lars
Lars
New Member
New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 45
jphughan - 7 May 2018 4:49 PM
Ah ok.  Yes, when it comes to folders, your only choices are either using an exclude mask or disabling subfolder backup entirely; there's no explicit include mask for subfolders like there is for files.  In terms of a workaround just to get something usable now though, I guess it depends on how simplified your above example is relative to the actual use case, and I fully grant that this could be a lot easier with a different interface, but in the configuration shown below, the first entry would back up any files at the root of Group A, but nothing in any subfolders, and then the next entries would cover everything in the subfolders you actually did want (although not any newly created subfolders).  Based on your example, it sounds like you want to exclude the majority of your subfolders and you only have a few that you want to back up, but you want EVERYTHING from those few folders?  If so, then this should achieve that, with the level of effort dependent on how many subfolders you actually do want backed up.



You are AWESOME!
You've assisted me in solving my problem. Bravo!

It's kind of funny, the solution was rather easy, and, yet the UI helped in blocking solving my problem. Whereas, I can easily see designing and creating a solution to solve selecting complex folder, file, subfolders and filters and know how to solve that. The key in this specific case was not using the folder exclusion mask whatsoever, and removing the include subfolder for just my "root". From my perspective I should be able to add and remove subfolders/subfiles as needed without having to modify the backup definition, unless one of the specifically declared folders is changed, removed, or added. That's somethings totally acceptable (although in a perfect environment the ability to modify the backup script when the folder hierarchy is modified in real-time would be ideal.)

Again, thank you for being the glue to solve my folder / file back task
jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.4K, Visits: 25K
You're quite welcome!  I'm glad I was able to at least get you something that works. Smile

Lars
Lars
New Member
New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)New Member (30 reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 45
jphughan - 7 May 2018 8:43 PM
You're quite welcome!  I'm glad I was able to at least get you something that works. Smile

It's a workaround and allows me to move forward.

However, the UI/UX needs attention to facilitate enhanced experience.
Two things need to be implemented to provide a better F&F experience in the short-run with minimal development investment:
1. Folder Selector Dialog -- remember opened hierarchy tree from last open event (like 15 seconds ago). CTRL+A, CTRL+C, OK, NEW, CTRL+V, and having to select and drag the sizing window from the drop down on dozens or hundreds of folders doesn't work.)
2. PROVIDE capability to EXCLUDE folder + it's subfolders and files from and included folder. This would eliminate having to enter dozens or hundreds of otherwise exceptions and only two entries would be needed, including the ability for the backup script to ALWAYS work correctly even when folders/files have been added, deleted, or renamed (save the specified two include/exclude folders).

jphughan
jphughan
Most Valuable Professional
Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)Most Valuable Professional (4.9K reputation)
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.4K, Visits: 25K
I never noticed that the folder selector that appears when you click the "..." button under "Folder to backup" doesn't remember the last selected folder.  As for your #2 request, maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, but it's already possible to exclude subfolders, both direct subfolders and even "second-level" subfolders where you capture everything in a direct subfolder except the contents of one of ITS subfolders.  See below.  This method would certainly get a bit unwieldy with a large list of exclusions, though.



Edited 7 May 2018 9:10 PM by jphughan
GO

Merge Selected

Merge into selected topic...



Merge into merge target...



Merge into a specific topic ID...




Similar Topics

Reading This Topic

Login

Explore
Messages
Mentions
Search