Fab's AutoBackup 7 Pro - a must have tool for techs

[fabs]

Sorry guys but that will not be that simple. Powershell commands were pretty easy ton find for Defender but if I succeed doing that with other AVs, then they will just remove Fab's entirely...

 

[timeshifter]

Sorry guys but that will not be that simple. Powershell commands were pretty easy ton find for Defender but if I succeed doing that with other AVs, then they will just remove Fab's entirely...

So how do we add exceptions to Defender? Are the Powershell commands included with Fabs?

 

[fabs]

So how do we add exceptions to Defender? Are the Powershell commands included with Fabs?

Yes, it does it by itself.

 

[timeshifter]

Yes, it does it by itself.

The portable version does it? So every time I run it, it adds them (if they’re not already there)?

 

[fabs]

The portable version does it? So every time I run it, it adds them (if they’re not already there)?

Yes, it adds them while running and removes them when quitting

 

[Larry Sabo]

@fabs, I just ran into a problem trying to exclude a folder that AutoBackup 7 Pro build 7.12.1.5971 was unable to read. I left it trying for a long time but it seemed to be stalled trying forever. (I thought it would time out and skip the file/folder?) Anyway, I backed up and excluded the folder but on retry, it still stalled on the same folder, rather than skipping it.

Edit: I left it trying the excluded folder and the job eventually proceeded and did exclude the selected folder. I'm retrying without the exclusion to see what it does if I give it enough time.

Edit 2: it eventually resumed and backed up the previously excluded folder and its sub-folders.

 

[nlinecomputers]

@fabs, I just ran into a problem trying to exclude a folder that AutoBackup 7 Pro build 7.12.1.5971 was unable to read. I left it trying for a long time but it seemed to be stalled trying forever. (I thought it would time out and skip the file/folder?) Anyway, I backed up and excluded the folder but on retry, it still stalled on the same folder, rather than skipping it.

Edit: I left it trying the excluded folder and the job eventually proceeded and did exclude the selected folder. I'm retrying without the exclusion to see what it does if I give it enough time.

Edit 2: it eventually resumed and backed up the previously excluded folder and its sub-folders.

sounds like a bad sector on the drive.

 

[Larry Sabo]

sounds like a bad sector on the drive.

I agree(*); my concern was with the program appearing to ignore the exclusion, but not.

Edit: (*) the drive has over 60,000 power-on hours of operation and likely suffers from a slow-responding firmware problem, in spite of a healthy SMART report. It's slow as molasses.

 

[fabs]

I agree; my concern was with the program appearing to ignore the exclusion, but not.

I see that you excluded the "I:\Users\Roger\AppData\Local\Google" folder. The program looks for the "I:\Users\Roger\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data" folder when it deals with Chrome profile. I agree it should not have been processed at all since it has been excluded. However, the Chrome profile was still selected on the main interface. That may be why it kept trying to process it anyway.

 

[Larry Sabo]

However, the Chrome profile was still selected on the main interface. That may be why it kept trying to process it anyway.

When I selected the Google folder, I assumed that included all sub-folders, including the Chrome\User Data folder.

 

[fabs]

When I selected the Google folder, I assumed that included all sub-folders, including the Chrome\User Data folder.

Exclusion does not prevent Fabs from looking into such folders. It will prevent it from listing what's inside for copy.
The search engine crawls inside folders. If it finds a file that is part of an exclusion, then it will not add it to copy list. I don't know if I can tweak that a bit so it will not even look into it.

 

[Larry Sabo]

The search engine crawls inside folders. If it finds a file that is part of an exclusion, then it will not add it to copy list. I don't know if I can tweak that a bit so it will not even look into it.

In cases like mine, where I suspect there are bad sectors within one of the sub-folders, it would be best not to look, if that's possible.

 

[fabs]

In cases like mine, where I suspect there are bad sectors within one of the sub-folders, it would be best not to look, if that's possible.

I'm currently working on it. Hopefully I'll find something. So far, not so good.

Edit : I've found something that looks suitable. Needs some more testing.

 

[fabs]

@Larry Sabo : Tests results are good. In your case, it would display that it's processing Google Chrome profile but only for an eye blink time (not sure that you could see it) and skip to next item without starting any file search.

 

[Larry Sabo]

Tests results are good. In your case, it would display that it's processing Google Chrome profile but only for an eye blink time (not sure that you could see it) and skip to next item without starting any file search.

Terrific! Thanks, @fabs!

 

[britechguy]

where I suspect there are bad sectors

Is it not possible to have Fabs ignore bad sectors, or only repeat trying X number of times on a given sector it cannot read?

It's always been my preference when any "mass data copying" utility, whether cloning software or something such as Fabs, be able to be told to either ignore sectors marked as bad and/or to only attempt a very few reading attempts when it hits something akin to "a needle skip and jump back" on an old vinyl album. If it can't be read on the first pass, I don't need or want 500 more attempts, just a couple are fine, thanks, then give up and move along.

 

[fabs]

Is it not possible to have Fabs ignore bad sectors, or only repeat trying X number of times on a given sector it cannot read?

It's always been my preference when any "mass data copying" utility, whether cloning software or something such as Fabs, be able to be told to either ignore sectors marked as bad and/or to only attempt a very few reading attempts when it hits something akin to "a needle skip and jump back" on an old vinyl album. If it can't be read on the first pass, I don't need or want 500 more attempts, just a couple are fine, thanks, then give up and move along.

That's not possible as fab's operates at file level, not at sector level like cloning software. However, there is a timeout feature that will skip such not copiable files and skip to next one

 

[britechguy]

However, there is a timeout feature that will skip such not copiable files and skip to next one

Where is that configured, in case I should ever need to configure it?

 

[fabs]

Where is that configured, in case I should ever need to configure it?

That's built-in

 

[britechguy]

That's built-in

I appreciate the response. That being said, based on what @Larry Sabo described happening, it seems to me like the number of retries needs to be adjusted down, way down. Or, if retries is not the way to look at it, the amount of time taken on retries needs to be reduced significantly.