synchronising a folders with date filter

Advertisement

solofr
Joined:
Posts:
2
Location:
France

synchronising a folders with date filter

Hello,

I'm using winscp with de command line.
Is it possible to synchronise folders with a filter by date?
I would like to synchronise some folders beetween now and 2 months earliers.

I hope to be clear.

Best Regards

Solo

PS: I'm using the 4.0.4 version of winscp

Reply with quote

Advertisement

martin
Site Admin
martin avatar
Joined:
Posts:
28,287
Location:
Prague, Czechia

Re: synchronising a folders with date filter

No, it is not clear, sorry :-( Please try again.
_________________
Martin Prikryl

Reply with quote

solofr
Joined:
Posts:
2
Location:
France

Re: Re: synchronising a folders with date filter

Ok, this is that I want to do.

I have a folder who contain more than 2500 folders
to synchronise.
The date of these subfolders start at 29 October 2007
and end at today.
I would to synchronise only the subfolders between
the 30 november 2007 to today and not the old one.

Is it possible?

Best regards

Solo

Reply with quote

martin
Site Admin
martin avatar
Joined:
Posts:
28,287
Location:
Prague, Czechia

Re: Re: synchronising a folders with date filter

No. You can filter them by name only.
_________________
Martin Prikryl

Reply with quote

todutta
Guest

date filter

Hi,

i have 100 file generating in an Archive direcotry in a DAY. based on the present date i need to move the files using FTP to other server in a hourly schedule job.

Please suggest me to set the date filter to transfer the files.

Thanks,
Ravi.

Reply with quote

Advertisement

drmrbrewer
Joined:
Posts:
23
Location:
UK

I'd also find it quite useful to have a "filter by date" feature, not just "filter by name". If I have a big sync job and *know* that the only changes are quite recent (e.g. in the last day) then I could run the sync job really quickly by telling WinSCP to ignore any files older than a day -- I'm not interested in WindSCP spending hours checking on the sync status of older files because I *know* they do not need uploading.

Having said this, with another ftp tool I have been using up till now (before I discovered WinSCP) this was quite an important feature request for me, but with WinSCP's excellent keepuptodate script command I can have a watch running in the background all the time, and hopefully I will rarely need to run an actual sync to upload new files to my server, because they will have been transferred in the background as they appear! It's only when something goes wrong (e.g. the WinSCP background keepuptodate process died for some reason and the changes weren't noticed) that I would need to run the sync job -- and it would be ideal then to tell WinSCP to skip over files older than a certain age to speed it up.

Mike

Reply with quote

martin
Site Admin
martin avatar
Joined:
Posts:
28,287
Location:
Prague, Czechia

drmrbrewer wrote:

I'd also find it quite useful to have a "filter by date" feature, not just "filter by name". If I have a big sync job and *know* that the only changes are quite recent (e.g. in the last day) then I could run the sync job really quickly by telling WinSCP to ignore any files older than a day -- I'm not interested in WindSCP spending hours checking on the sync status of older files because I *know* they do not need uploading.
Sorry I do not understand how this can quicken the synchronization. WinSCP would still need to compare the time of the file, not against time of the target file, but against the filter time. This would take the same time.
_________________
Martin Prikryl

Reply with quote

drmrbrewer
Joined:
Posts:
23
Location:
UK

Surely it takes longer to query the mod time of a *remote* file than to query the mod time of a *local* file? With the former you have to communicate with the remote server, whereas with the former you only have a local OS call to make... I'm no expert but that MUST be quicker? I've been using another ftp program that does run through to compare each and every file against its remote counterpart, and it takes forever.

Mike

Reply with quote

martin
Site Admin
martin avatar
Joined:
Posts:
28,287
Location:
Prague, Czechia

drmrbrewer wrote:

Surely it takes longer to query the mod time of a *remote* file than to query the mod time of a *local* file? With the former you have to communicate with the remote server, whereas with the former you only have a local OS call to make... I'm no expert but that MUST be quicker?
That's true. Yet you still have to query for content of the remote directory to check if it contains files/folders not present in local directory. Or if the timestamps of existing remote files are the same as timestamps local files which are newer then the filter.
_________________
Martin Prikryl

Reply with quote

Advertisement

drmrbrewer
Joined:
Posts:
23
Location:
UK

What I'm thinking of is the "synchronize remote" command: so it's only changes to local files that are sent to the remote server. So, no need to query remote server to check for files/folders not present in local folder. And if you can skip quickly over 99% of the local files without making *any* query to remote server (because 99% of local files fall outside the date filter range), then that's a big time saving. Don't you also get a similar time saving when using the filename filter with "synchronize remote"; all I'm suggesting is to do filtering based on timestamps as well as on filenames.

Cheers,

Mike

Reply with quote

Advertisement

You can post new topics in this forum