?Copy with Verification false alarm?

The behaviour described in the bug report is either by design, or would be far too complex/time-consuming to be changed

Moderators: Stefan2, white, sheep, Hacker

User avatar
ghisler(Author)
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37562
Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Post by *ghisler(Author) » 2013-12-17, 17:06 UTC

I need feedback from more users whether this function works for them or not. If it doesn't, I need the following info:
To those who had this problem: Can you please retry with beta 7 now?
Please turn on logging in Configuration - Options - Log file. Please log file operations and log successful and failed operations.

When you get the error, you should get more details about the checked file size, and the MD5 of the source and target. Please post them here, and compare them with the real size and MD5 of the copied file.
Unfortunately there seems to be very little interest in this function, so I have already removed it for beta 13. Maybe I will re-add it if I get enough feedback from people who want to use it.
Author of Total Commander
http://www.ghisler.com

User avatar
raeubi
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 573
Joined: 2003-11-25, 09:01 UTC
Location: Rhein/Main

Post by *raeubi » 2013-12-19, 07:57 UTC

I'd used the new functionality with many, many, many copy and move operations in the last weeks/months on various systems with many small and large files (e.g.: VMware virtual HDs)

No problems observed!

Tested on:
+ MS Windows NT (x86)
+ MS Windows Server 2008 (x86/x64)
+ MS Windows 7 (x86/x64)
+ MS Windows 8 (x64)
+ MS Windows 8.1 (x64)

I was very happy about the new function!!!

And now ... :(

Problem reporter, please verify the behavior!!
Räubi
(#2852 + #287609)

User avatar
Balderstrom
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2005-10-11, 10:10 UTC

Post by *Balderstrom » 2013-12-19, 08:32 UTC

I don't understand this logic.

One user complains about an error. No one else has had a problem.
And you are going to remove the function because it's too unreliable...
and you cannot even reproduce the problem nor can anyone else.
*BLINK* TC9 Added WM_COPYDATA and WM_USER queries for scripting.

User avatar
MVV
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 8305
Joined: 2008-08-03, 12:51 UTC
Location: Russian Federation

Post by *MVV » 2013-12-19, 09:41 UTC

Balderstrom wrote:I don't understand this logic.
Same thought is on the Russian board. No one is able to reproduce bug but the feature is removed.

It is not a critical function, it doesn't cause data loss. If it doesn't work for someone, fixing may be postponed until details will be obtained, while others may use it as is. Also, if people will use it, they will have a chance to reproduce this bug.

User avatar
rus73
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 2013-05-30, 08:39 UTC
Location: Russia

Post by *rus73 » 2013-12-19, 11:23 UTC

Balderstrom wrote:I don't understand this logic.

One user complains about an error. No one else has had a problem.
And you are going to remove the function because it's too unreliable...
and you cannot even reproduce the problem nor can anyone else.
It is not a critical function, please return this function.

alik
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 2006-11-18, 08:39 UTC

Post by *alik » 2013-12-19, 12:08 UTC

white wrote:
ghisler(Author) wrote:If I can't get feedback from users with this problem, I have to remove the function because it's just too unreliable. :(
To me it still looks like defective memory. Is user Herbert the only user that reported this problem? What exactly can people do to test this?
I also agree that it is likely caused by a defective memory stick. I had quite the same symptoms with WinRAR failing in CRC verification after I had found that one of my memory sticks is failing memtest.

Skif_off
Member
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 2013-09-30, 13:13 UTC

Post by *Skif_off » 2013-12-19, 13:42 UTC

MVV wrote:If it doesn't work for someone, fixing may be postponed until details will be obtained, while others may use it as is. Also, if people will use it, they will have a chance to reproduce this bug.
Totally agree, I used to verify checksums after copying (usually SHA1) and after copying with new option continue to do so: errors have not yet been. Copy speed dropped a little, but it's worth it.

TW
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 337
Joined: 2005-01-19, 13:35 UTC

Post by *TW » 2013-12-19, 13:48 UTC

well, but there really was hardly any feedback here, until that option got removed...
licenced and happy TC user since 1994 (#11xx)

User avatar
ghisler(Author)
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37562
Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Post by *ghisler(Author) » 2013-12-19, 14:39 UTC

The plan was to postpone the function to TC 9.0, so there is more time to test it extensively. The main problem is that I don't know the reason of the errors reported by user "Herbert":
- Is it a bug in the function?
- Is it caused by virus scanners or so? False alarm?
- Is it caused by hardware errors? Real alarm?

I added code to debug this, but no one could help me analyze the problem so far. :(

Btw, the function is still there, but disabled and hidden. You can re-add it via wincmd.ini, section [Configuration]:
VerifyEnabled=1
Author of Total Commander
http://www.ghisler.com

User avatar
byblo
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 2005-02-20, 21:13 UTC

Post by *byblo » 2013-12-19, 15:25 UTC

ghisler(Author) wrote:I added code to debug this, but no one could help me analyze the problem so far. :(
Since Herbert is the only one who got the problem, he seems to be the only one who can help you with this problem ?

About myself, I've been begging for this function here in forum since years, and very happy to see it eventually. Thank you :)

I am a bit afraid to use the beta TC versions, but will run tonight some copy/verify test files with b12, and will report here if any error is reported or found.

User avatar
svetlov
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 2013-12-19, 17:17 UTC
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Post by *svetlov » 2013-12-19, 17:23 UTC

Does Herbert have the NTFS compression function switched on? This could explain everything!

I had got the same trouble with verifying XP backups until I guessed to switch the compression off on the target drive.

User avatar
MVV
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 8305
Joined: 2008-08-03, 12:51 UTC
Location: Russian Federation

Post by *MVV » 2013-12-19, 19:04 UTC

Strange, NTFS compression (and encryption) shouldn't matter because it is decompressed on the driver level.

User avatar
byblo
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 2005-02-20, 21:13 UTC

Post by *byblo » 2013-12-19, 19:10 UTC

Been trying copy & verify function for hours now, on w7sp1, using TC32, TC64, sata to sata, ntfs compression, usb key, lot of little files, big files, ect, without any error reported.

For now, it seems working well here.

Maybe Herbert has some hardware or software problem, giving the verify function his legitimacy and usefulness?

I agree with the others, the verify function should be kept on TC's beta version, since it is not harmful in any way, and may increase the chances to find other users with similar problem encountered by Herbert.

User avatar
raeubi
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 573
Joined: 2003-11-25, 09:01 UTC
Location: Rhein/Main

Post by *raeubi » 2013-12-19, 22:44 UTC

ghisler(Author) wrote:[Configuration]
VerifyEnabled=1
Thank you!!
Räubi
(#2852 + #287609)

Rainie
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 2013-08-29, 09:14 UTC
Location: Russia

Post by *Rainie » 2013-12-21, 15:47 UTC

ghisler(Author) wrote: Btw, the function is still there, but disabled and hidden. You can re-add it via wincmd.ini, section [Configuration]:
VerifyEnabled=1
Thanks for this! I must not use beta versions in my work because of critical data, but, if "VerifyEnabled=1" is working in stable 8.50, I'll
diligently test it.
#197063 Personal licence

Post Reply