The first time I ran it there was a long delay between seeing Checking prospero.unm.edu... and seeing evidence of file transfer. The whole prospero thing took 7:19 and it downloaded everything. The second time I ran it, the prospero thing took 6:13 and it downloaded nothing (expected). The third time was like the second (6:13 again). In all cases the BTM choked when it got to the 7Z stuff.
I imagine prospero's upstream bandwidth is limited, or the FTP server limits per-connection transfer speed.
It doesn't look like there's anything wrong.
You might make a suggestion (suggestion forum) that TCC show messages like this.
Code:
ftp://prospero.unm.edu/tcmd/v8/version.txt ... up to date
The whole prospero thing took 7:19 and it downloaded everything. The second time I ran it, the prospero thing took 6:13 and it downloaded nothing (expected).
I realize there is nothing wrong with TCMD but I would just like more status messages. Was thinking for each FTP site -
dir /a:d ftp:whatever > %tmp%\whatever.lst
then check each folder - with the what is currently the BTM does..... but seems to be an easier way to get more status messages?
I get the impression that it's spending a lot of time recursing into subdirectories. Which is maybe not surprising; there are a lot of nested subdirectories on that site.
For best performance, remove the /S. Judging by your exclusions, I don't think you're interested in the stuff in the subdirectories anyway.
Or if you really want to recurse, change your exclusion range to /[! src/ tcmd/ tccle/ tccrt/ *.exe version.sav ] and remove the /F.
It would be nice if COPY /U had more status messages. Especially if there are a lot of files/folders being checked. Please see the folloowng thread for more.... https://jpsoft.com/forums/threads/copy-u-with-a-ftp-site.11154/#post-63033
I realize there is nothing wrong with TCMD but I would just like more status messages. Was thinking for each FTP site -
dir /a:d ftp:whatever > %tmp%\whatever.lst
then check each folder - with the what is currently the BTM does..... but seems to be an easier way to get more status messages?
Heck! Make a complete list, with file names, and copy them one at a time. I doubt it would take significantly longer if you used IFTP. I haven't tested, but in a perfect world, _? will be zero if the file was copied and non-zero otherwise. If that's so, you could have a status report for every file.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.