Smart Update Failed - Device Full

ae6dx · #1 08-21-2006, 12:14 AM

dnanian · #2 08-21-2006, 10:20 AM

Hi, Brad. I've already replied to your support mail, so let me refer you there. (For others, see the Troubleshooting section of the User's Guide for a full discussion of how this happens with Smart Update.)

Twitch · #3 08-24-2006, 06:46 PM

I also get this error. Working with video, my files tend to be quite large and they do get moved around. I usually get this error 50-70% of the time I try to mirror two drives of identical size.

There are so many things I love about this program, unfortunately I'm getting tired of comming in to my studio in the morning to find superduper failed to mirror my drive the night before.

Any chance this can be improved in a future release? I used to use psync to mirror my drives from the command line and I don't recall this ever happening.

dnanian · #4 08-24-2006, 06:50 PM

We're looking at various ways to improve this in the future, Twitch, yes.

psync didn't have this problem for you because it first runs an erase pass, then it does a copy. The problem with that is it leaves you a lot more vulnerable -- if your drive failed in between, you'd lose both the "backed up" copy and the original, since everything had been deleted...

Twitch · #5 08-25-2006, 07:30 PM

ahhh.. I didn't look at it from a vulnerability aspect, makes sense. I guess psync exposes files renamed or moved to potential data loss.

Now I'm a bit more nervous about the suggested work around (erase then copy). This potentialy leaves the entire drive vulnerable for data loss.

I guess this is a no-win situation. I suppose it's best to have a backup drive larger than the orignal for maximum safety and in that case it's good to know SuperDuper will keep the data as safe as possible during the copy operation.

dnanian · #6 08-25-2006, 08:28 PM

Alternative workarounds are simply "helping" Smart Update. So, if you've renamed a large folder on the source, do the same on the destination. Then, SD! won't have trouble.

But, as I said, we have some ideas...

SidneySM · #7 09-16-2006, 12:24 AM

Here's an idea: Run a prep pass in which files to be deleted, added, and updated are determined, then update the backup, beginning with deletion.

dnanian · #8 09-16-2006, 11:03 AM

No. That's the obvious thing to do (two pass), but it's also the wrong thing to do, because if you delete first and then can't copy, you've lost data (especially with a move or rename).

SidneySM · #9 10-14-2006, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dnanian

No. That's the obvious thing to do (two pass), but it's also the wrong thing to do, because if you delete first and then can't copy, you've lost data (especially with a move or rename).

Sorry this is so delayed, but...

OK, I missed the move/rename thing. I had always assumed that SD! used some kinda checksum to do the smart update rather then just checking path. I mentioned a scan pass so that the delete pass would only delete files that no longer existed on the source drive.

Guess I'll have to wait for those ideas you have to be realized

dnanian · #10 10-14-2006, 08:41 PM

Consider how slow it would be to checksum each destination file and try to match it against every source file, Sidney...

jmooers · #11 10-24-2006, 11:47 AM

This seems to be a huge limitation of SuperDuper!. We have been using it on our local system, and it worked so great that I installed it on our server.

I have this same problem, but for some reason it only happens every 5-7 days. It is as if the program does not let go of the virtual memory so the disk eventually fills.

I switched from Retrospect to SuperDuper! because I was constantly having to babysit Retrospect, making sure it did back up and did so correctly. I feel like now, I have to login to the server every morning to make sure it backed up, and reexecute an Erase disk if it is full. Who has time to do that? It is disappointing.

I find that 2 MAJOR features missing with this app.
1. This problem
2. The lack of integrated email notification

Other than these 2 issues, I love the program. I hope that future upgrades hold these features.

dnanian · #12 10-24-2006, 12:19 PM

This has nothing to do with memory, jmooers: it's because files are being actively updated on the source volume when we try to copy them. If you look at the name of the file that seems to be filling the drive, that's what's causing issues.

If this is a server, it's possible that it's a log or similar -- and you can adjust the copy scripts to ignore the log folder(s).

If you have a lot of active services during copy, it's possible those are the problem -- and you should use the before/after copy shell script call-outs to disable and re-enable those services during the backup.

As far as email notification goes, Growl works quite well, so I'd suggest giving that a shot.

Hope that helps.

s_dup · #13 03-14-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

No. That's the obvious thing to do (two pass), but it's also the wrong thing to do, because if you delete first and then can't copy, you've lost data (especially with a move or rename).

But why wouldn't this work safely if the source drive has items that should no longer be on the destination drive. For example if you delete folders on the source drive and clone the drive the same folders will be deleted on the destination drive. Can't you have a option that allows deletes to proceed copies (freeing up space). Even if the rest of the cloning fails you were still going to delete the file on the destination drive anyway, yu haven't lost anything you were giong to loose anyway. You're just doing it first. It fact it might help you save data... if you forget to check the log you might assume the backup worked when it failed. It might have a small speed advatange as well by freeing up space so the other copies go faster. But most important it means th user doesn't have to worry about cloning failing if low on disk space or working wih large files.

dnanian · #14 03-14-2007, 01:48 PM

Not necessarily, no. Consider a "move" of data from one location to another. If we delete the "old" copy first and the new copy is damaged, you lose files...

s_dup · #15 03-14-2007, 02:59 PM

But if you scanned the entire disk directory at the beginning wouldn't you be able to determine what has only moved and what was actually deleted? Don't you have to make that determination at some point? You might even be able to post an estimated time to complete backup (e.g 23 file to copy, estimated time is 5.5 minutes).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Smart Update Question	gbjerry	General	1	06-24-2006 08:43 AM
Smart Update in Reverse?	jaydisc	General	1	06-09-2006 10:28 AM
Smart Update Vs Copy Newer	etb	General	4	06-06-2006 11:48 PM
smart update didn't work due to remaining space problems	JohnCoffee	General	1	05-08-2005 10:42 AM
Smart Update Deletes Rest of Volume?	Pixx	General	12	04-26-2005 11:04 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)