chas_m:
Sorry but you're missing the point of my exercise completely,
. What I want to do is to keep all my datafiles in an external harddrive. I've been carefully keeping my previous years files into folders named by years, going all the way back to 1997. I've been able to download these files into an external harddrive which I then take wherever I go. So, if I buy a new computer or change jobs, I just upload all my files into the new computer and I am ready to go. Depending on where I am, I may use a Mac or a PC (I have yet to come across a Linux machine). So, I need this external harddrive to be compatible across both systems. As I am also accessing computers in hotels and other public places, the harddrive really needs to be cross-platform compatible.
Since the memory in new computers are always much bigger than the older versions, there hasn't been a problem, even if in the process, I copied over system files or program files which become unusable. I don't mind as long as my datafiles are good to go. I don't even mind if the files get bigger when I copy them over, as long as my overall memory needs are manageable.
This was relatively easy in the past, as files were much smaller then and the Windows disk format works across the two platforms. But now, I've hit a problem:
mrplow & chas_m:
So OK, mrplow and chas_m (and anybody else out there who can help), as I understand it, new disk formats have evolved to meet growing needs (bigger files and deeper directories). BTW, thanks, mrplow, for explaining the 255 length limitation. That was very helpful. My worry is: will the new disk format make the drive unreadable if I chance upon an old computer (I travel to all kinds of places and there's no telling if they have a computer let alone a later version).
Over the years, I've accumulated about 400 GB of data. I'm pretty sure everything I need is in there somewhere. If I were to go in and clean it up as mrplow suggests, it'd probably reduce to somewhere around 250GB, or even less. Given that I haven't been very good at housekeeping, this will take me easily a week or so to do (I work fulltime and am married, so I cannot spare spendings days on end on this). So, I am not keen to do this.
What I have done so far:
1. I tried to backup by simply copying the User folder (where most of my datafiles I think are kept) into an external harddrive. No good, I got hit by the 255 limitation.
2. So, I tried downloading free software to do this for me. Also, no good. They are similarly hit and worse, are difficult to use since they are essentially backup programs rather than what I had in mind. I actually think that what I want is a folder sync program which I can run everytime I need to - say once a day before I leave the office or when I am going on a trip. The only other thing I'd like from this folder sync program is that files that I have deleted from the main folder are not deleted in the backup. That way (for example, one of my old computers that I still use at home runs on Windows XP and only has a 50GB internal drive), I can have say, a 2 TB external harddrive, and still use a smaller capacity home computer.
My current alternatives:
1. Reformat my external harddrive as mrplow suggests. But what about older computers like my Windows 7?
2. Organize my folders so that the directories are not too deep and the filenames are similarly short. Can, but this will take quite some time.
Any better solution? The more I think about it, the more I think this will be a trend in the future - keep all your datafiles in an external harddrive, which you then take wherever you go. Like a "hard" version of Dropbox. Many people I know already do this - instead of bringing me a USB drive, they bring their harddrive. Maybe some may even have several harddrives for different uses - e.g personal, office, family, etc. I'd still want a full backup in my office computer - in case anything goes wrong. But I do see myself carrying around a harddrive with all my files in it instead of a heavy computer or laptop. Or even as well as.
BTW:
OK, there is this 255 filelength limitation. However, when I manually copy the files over, it works and the backup drive is useable (in the sense that I can go in and access the files). Am I right in saying then that the problem lies in the copy command? If the problem is in the disk format, i.e. for some reason they cannot accommodate too many layers, then the backup drive won't be working. So, why can't someone write a software which solves this length problem - i.e. open the folders in the backup drive before copying over rather than copying the entire path? That is, do what I do manually.