Vista Explorer only supports 16'384 File Copy Operations !!!

[simmons2]

When reaching this hard-limit of 16'384 files copied by Vista Explorer, people has dangerous troubles with Vista (loss of data without warning etc. !!!) - and has to re-boot immediatly.

Even if you copy large amounts of files in smaller pieces you would have to re-boot each time after about 16'384 files !!!

With Vista Explorer you cannot copy more then 16'384 files to / from CD/DVD - not to / from an external HD/MemoryStick/or other devices !!! Good luck with your Backups and Restores !!! Good luck to bring in to Vista your Data from former OS !!!

16'384 can be reached after minutes, houres, days, months - it's just a ticking bomb all the time !!!

16'384 is a limit over ALL copy operations that we do with Vista Explorer since the last system boot - it's NOT a limit for each disk or so, and it's NOT a limit for one SINGLE copy-task !!!

Congratulations Microsoft !

PLEASE REPLY HERE WHEN YOU EXPERIANCE THE SAME KIND OF PROBLEM - SO MICROSOFT COULD WAKE UP !!!

simmons

[Gatticus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocopy

[simmons2]

Hello Gatticus

- do you think copying files is something an OS should be able to do with his STANDARD procedures ?

- do you think the AMOUNT of files that can be copied with standard features should be limited by hardware ressources or by software counters ?

- do you think exhausted limits should unstabilize the OS ?

Your proposal is (eventually) a bypass, thanks for it. But i am looking forward to a Vista that does well for what Microsoft asks a lot of money.

simmons

P.S.: how do i explain to my users how / why to deal with RoboCopy or something else then Vista Explorer - just for copying files from A to B ?

[drizzt81]

I love to rag on Vista like the next person. However, I would like to rag on it for issues that actually exist. Would you mind linking to some place with 3rd party verification for this issue.

[simmons2]

I have another opinion - but this is OK for me. How do i delete this (unuseful ?) thread ?

simmons

[Frobozz]

nah simmons. I think it's a very useful thread if the issue is true. Like drizzt81 said, are there other places where this error is documented?

If it is a Vista issue then it is a very big poo poo on MS's part.

[ScYcS]

That's kind of strange....i copied almost all my files from my 2nd hdd back to my Vista boot drive and it was well over 30000 files and they all copied....

[Grimlaking]

Vista Explorer only supports 16'384 File Copy Operations !!!

Lol... is this like the hook man stories you tell around a camp fire when you are in the boyscouts? Sounds like the evil fisherman with a hook hand that lives in the forest to me.

IE linkie or no believie..

As others have said. it sounds like rubbish. To compound....

An operating system treats an read request for a file and a write request for a file as two seperate events. You read from location A and write to location B. And for almost all files a read request is actually processed incrementally multiple times and the same with a write request. It has to be started and stopped and resumed multiple times as other IO operations take place.

So really if you copy.. lets say a 50 meg file from location a to location b you have performed to the OS hundreds of thousands if not millions of read/write requests.

Take a pill and you will be cool.

[simmons2]

Thanks Grimlaking - maybe a pill could help. For me or for Microsoft ?

===

Sorry drizzt81 - my english understanding has some lecks !! But know i understand - you would like to have some others opinion.

Really that's not easy - because it's almost unbeleavible. But here some links (it's sometimes driven be myself):

- http://cgi.zdnet.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7081 ( verify with the LAST post, from BerndN - i do NOT know him)

- http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1263544&SiteID=1 ( verify with post from HReg, i do NOT know him)

- http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=685888 (that's a thread from another person, that i do NOT know)

- http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1157908 (that's YOUR form, the thread was opened by someone i do NOT know - MY thread about 16'384 is just some kind of Resume / Qunitesence etc. )

- http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?t=62411 (thread from someone i do NOT know - they do NOT know so much as we (or i) know NOW and as i have condensed HERE)

Microsoft told me NOT to be able to reproduce the problem. As i personally CAN reproduce it on DIFFERENT hardware, also after basic installation without any schnick-schnack, with DIFFERENT Vista versions - i suppose it's REALLY a problem - a big one - maybe even a achitectural or design problem.

Let me know if you need some more info's. From my side i will certenly inform if i know more.

Thanks all of you - and who wishes to be helpful makes a 10-minutes test:

- make a dir somewhere
- open notepad and save in the new dir (.txt-file can be small or even empty)
- point with Vista Explorer into that dir
- make 16 times the following: ctrl-a ctrl-c ctrl-v (just to multiply your notepad-file up to 16'384 files)

The test consumes more and more time, as more files must be copied. PROBABLY your Vista Explorer begins motzing when around 16'684 files in the new folder.

Re-boot your system after that test ! Otherwise Vista Explorer echoes copy-actions as OK without doing anything etc. etc.

AND PLEASE: REPORT HERE WHAT HAPENED ON YOUR MACHINE (Out of memory or NOT out of memory)

simmons

[Gatticus]

In the link I posted for Robocopy it says this: "Ability to copy large quantities of files that would normally crash the built-in XCOPY utility."

If large amounts of file copying can crash Xcopy then I would guess that it can/will cause explorer to crash too.

[Frobozz]

grim, I agree with you about the linkage and I would assume something like this would be caught in Q/A if not by a customer by now. However, there's so much junk going on in a copy operation (cacheing, write verification, rights, yaddy yaddy ya) I would believe it if there was a bug in some action associated with copying (memory leak or whatnot).


ninjaedit: and simmons posted that as I was typing this.. Thanks for the links and the procedure to reproduce. Off to test. :D

[simmons2]

Hello Grimlaking

I would like to see a Vista (an Operating System) who "treats an read request for a file and a write request for a file as two seperate events" etc. etc. (your words). But that was on boyscouts and fisherman's time. Today it's different. HERE is the problem.

And it is NOT a problem of MegaBytes, it's the problem of the AMOUNT OF FILES.

I suppose Vista fills up internal tables of copied/moved files "over the time" - and it does NEVER free's those tables - as boyscout and fishermen has done. With resons as: we have new technology, new architecture, new design of our OS. Bullshit !!!

simmons

[serialtoon]

This is very odd. The more i use Vista the more i love it. But latley alot of people have been finding bugs that screw up precious files on your system. Im starting to worry now. Although i never really copy anything, i have gotten that bug when i tried to extract a rar file containing alot of files.

[Grimlaking]

Interesting.. Everything is a forum.

I'll be sure to pass this on to one of my techs in the office with a vista test machine to find out for sure if it is a bug. I know a few that would find this one interesting.

I have to wonder if it is a limit of ntfs or fat32 and or of the OS itself?

Does it matter if it is on the same drive or different drives

And yes read and writes are processed as two seperate types of tasks within the windows OS's. I can not speak to the linux or other flavors as I simply don't know for a fact. The same reason why disabling part of a virusscanner IE on read or on write will then allow some viruses to get through because of the flaws in code that they exploit. They still must have a read or write function.

I am going to pass this on to someone in the office to test on a vista box right now.

Looks like my likely candidates are in a meeting I will try to find someone to confirm.

[simmons2]

While trying since January 30 to bring lot's of files into Vista from a W2K HD, also by an external USB-HD, i had the same kind of problems (16'384). I then tried xcopy and/or RoboCopy ... without success !!! With the same problems !!!!!! (I am NOT shure if i also used RoboCopy - maybe someone else could check that out).

The problem is probably deeper in the OS then Vista Explorer. It could be even a architectural / design problem, as noted days, already weeks before.

simmons

[ChronoReverse]

No it doesn't. You do know how if you copy and paste like the way you prescribed, Explorer has to check and rename each and every file you're copying right? That takes a lot of text parsing.


Anyways, to refute you, I modified your test slightly such that Explorer doesn't need to rename the files as much (only a few folder names).

I take your 16,384 and raise you 32,768.
http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/2353/18968504bp7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The folders containing the files (2048 in each folder).
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/5691/59165488qb6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Here we go!
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8892/88472400oz8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Seems good so far.
http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/9889/81801470li5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
And here too.
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/5468/75555634ts0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Another successful copy.
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/1003/63543412jt8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


There IS another bug in here though. See if you can spot it.

[LstOfTheBrunnenG]

I'm copying my Program Files folder to another drive right now. That's ca. 60,000 files. Mind you my box has been up for nine days now, so I'm probably already pretty close to that "limit."

I'll be able to post my findings in about thirty-three minutes according to Explorer.

[simmons2]

Hello Grimlaking

- it is on the same disk

- it is from disk (physical) to disk (physical)

- it is from disk to CD / DCD

- it is from disk to USB-Disk

- it is all vice versa

- it is from RAR Extraction, if you believe member serialtoon

- it is from XP-Backup Extraction !!! (that's also MY experiance) (to read XP-Backup-Files you first have to download some code from Microsoft - they are as stupid as decades before !!!)

simmons

[Grimlaking]

chronoreverse

Interesting test. Could you validte the presense of the files for me?

Also for so many files.. even at 1 byte per file they should be taking up collectively 16k.


Anyway yea could you simply confirm that the files are there?

I wonder if this has more to do with windows search built into vista.

[As I Lay Dying]

@ChronoReverse is your your location property being D(yen) ???

[ChronoReverse]

@As I Lay Dying
I'm in Japanese Locale. That changes the \ symbol to Yen with certain fonts.

@Grimlaking
They're zero-byte files because I made an empty text file using simmons' method except I quickly realized the parsing that Explorer had to do. I'll redo the test with 1KB files since I've already deleted these. Give me five minutes.

[crewzen]

Well I guess I need to try this on a SCSI raid array with external raid card. To see if it is a function of Vista or something else.:o

[Alias2]

I havn't had any problems backing up my photos to an external drive, or my network server. Thats about 33,000 photos. I am however trying to reproduce your results right now. But its hard in this bumpy, loud U-Haul truck.

[simmons2]

Hello ChronoReverse

Could you tell me something about your environment ?

What OS exactly (Home ... Ultimate; 32 bit - 64 bit; Final, Beta, rc-xxx) ?

I cannot find the other error you talk about - will search another day. Just wondering about a special sign after D: ... something like PEACE ?

Shure, my test is somewhat stupid - but easy to describe. Beleave me, i have made others !

simmons

[ChronoReverse]

Vista Ultimate 32bit
Pentium D 820
2GB RAM
80GB Seagate Barracuda IV

The new text file =)
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/9094/56240758ww2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

In all its 1KB glory
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5228/76189278wx9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

A little bit of copy-pasta later
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/2052/65439857kg0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The starting set
http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/5228/14400082ub0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Go Go Go
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/2738/23839441vg7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

And here they are
http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/7550/29530923jc9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

It takes up some space when they're not zero bytes. Can you figure out my cluster size from this?
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2195/28176788ec0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[mezpo]

Is the bug where the properties tab shows location or the fact that is says 0 bytes?

Also, I had problems adding my music to itunes. I'm not at home right now but I'll check how many files it was when i get home. I thought it was just an issue with itunes running on vista 64. It would crash every time i tried to add large numbers at a time. When I added them in smaller amounts at a time it was fine.

I did however copy my whole my documents folder over from my laptop which is running XP Pro and the only problems I had there was when I lost power. Again I don't know exactly how many files there were but I'm sure it was over 16,384.

[simmons2]

Hello all

when, in the next 120 minutes, NOBODY verifies the problem, then i will do the following:

- take another pc
- de-mount anything but mainboard, ram, vga, cd/dvd, ps/2-keyboard, ps/2-mouse, screen and ide-disk
- boot with vista business final german
- clear disk
- make ONE partition
- install vista
- run my test as described above
==
- i do NOT put the pc on the net or some other connection (bluetooth, serial, parallel etc.)
- i do NOT put any external disk/cd/dvd/memory-stick into/onto the system until test has finished
==
and then i report here what happened.

Is this OK for you - do you have suggestions what else to do for isolating the problem ?

REMEMBER: i am not the only one reporting those problems !

simmons

[Frobozz]

I'm still copying using the method you posted (ctrl-a, ctrl-c, ctrl-v) and am on the last copy to get the 16,384 files. However I have to go to lunch soon and wont be able to play with for about an hour.

I could see this turning into a thread of system-specs, vista versions, and patch levels. :p

[ChronoReverse]

@simmons2
Don't do the test using your method. You're actually stalling Vista with the parsing and sorting of filenames.

Do what I did instead. c+a,c+c,c+v as you said until you get 2048 files. Then Copy and Paste the folder until you have 8 of them. That's the same number of files. Then copy and paste all 8 folders at once.


@mezpo
Nope, neither of those are bugs.

Hint: the bug appeared in the zero byte file copy but not the 1KB one.

[simmons2]

Hello mezpo

in my cases i does NOT help to do it in smaller amouts of files. As soon as that limit has been reached, icannot copy ONE SINGLE file any more.

My HD Partition's have enough of free space. My RAM is free for about 2.5 GB.

simmons

[Toytown]

I just copied my log files from my CSS Server to my vista pc, the server has been running for almost 2 years and there is 56893 log files (ranging from 5KB-700KB)

Copying them from 1 harddrive to another.........no problem
Copying them from the same harddrive to a different folder on the same harddrive .........no problem
Copying them from a USB harddrive to my system drive (C) ........no problem
Copying them from a USB harddrive to my D Drive ......no problem.

The log files will not fit on a DVD, so i cant test and to be honest cant be bothered as im sure the results are going to be the same. I also did all the tests without rebooting vista once.

[Grimlaking]

Perhaps it is something to do with 3rd party apps initiating the copy?

Any other settings active.. auto restore anything along those lines?

[Grimlaking]

For everyone reporting the problem is it only in the naturalized versions of vista? IE German, spanish, itialian, french, cambodian, what have you.

[simmons2]

Hello mezpo

thanks for your proposal. I have done it in YOUR way long ago - it's the same.

I also have written a small c# application to generate any desired number of dir's with any number of desired files in each of the dir's with any desired amount of bytes in the files. Dirs and files are named very short - so i cannot get long names errors etc.

But sorry - always the same error ! Shit !

But i am glad to hear that some other do NOT have this problem.

Someone mentionned about Search Feature. I do NOT know all the details here concerning Vista - but i have the problem with Disk's that have Indexing =ON and i have the problem that have Indexing =OFF - respectively i have made test's between disk with ON and OFF.

simmons

[MrMike]

I attempted the exact test you posted. It took just about an hour because of all the file renaming as Chrono pointed out. Explorer.exe was pegged at 50% CPU usage just about the entire time.

The computer I tested it on was 'Helios' in my sig, running Vista Ultimate 64bit. No issues whatsoever. Windows search indexing was turned on, and this was done on the desktop which is generally an indexed folder.

P.S. "Hello World" ftw.

[Grimlaking]

If it is a short C app you may want to post the code so some others can take a peek at it and see. OR link to a safe compiled version that they can test with. Errr if they can read german I would imagine.

[simmons2]

Hello Grimlaking

I am not shure if i undestand - are you asking ME for the C# test application ? If yes, of course i can post the code right here - there are just a few lines of source code (one must have .net framework 2 or vs2005 to compile it) - let me know if i shall post it - and then give me a couple of minutes to make it english (know it's swiss german).

simmons

[Grimlaking]

Since I do not have a vista box with a compiler on it let alone no access to one at work I will have to defray to one of my capable associates in this forum.

[As I Lay Dying]

@ChronoReverse
well I believe your cluster size is 4KB, and I think the bug, here is that its reporting the wrong total filesizes. if there are 32K files and each file is 1KB should not the total file size be 32KB not 352K?

I got your cluster size by total size on disk/1024 to get the units into KB and then dividing by the total number of files.

[Frobozz]

Just to report in.
I did not encounter the problem when copying the 16,384 empty .txt files around.

System Specs:
Vista Business 32-bit
Intel D865PERL (http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/D865PERL/index.htm)
512MB ram
3.2GHZ P4 w/ HT


For everyone reporting the problem is it only in the naturalized versions of vista? IE German, spanish, itialian, french, cambodian, what have you.

nifty question.

[simmons2]

hello

here the code to genereate a lot of small files. it replicates c:\autoexec.bat into a newly generated dir c:\a with subdirs d1 ... d5, 4'000 repicas in each of those folders.

After running the program (3 files - compile it, start it, push the button, wait til final message after about 1 - 2 minutes) you can copy c:\a to some other location - thats the moment where i (and others) get the error.

Here the command lines (from within command tool, from dir where you put the following 3 files):

PATH=C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727
Csc.exe Form1.cs Form1.Designer.cs Program.cs
program.exe

=== file 1: Form.cs ===
using System.Data;
using System.Drawing;
using System.Text;
using System.Windows.Forms;

using System.IO;

namespace WindowsApplication1
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public string sDir = "C:/A/";
public string sInF = "C:/autoexec.bat";

public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}

private void buttonErstelle_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
int idt = 0;

int id = Convert.ToInt32(textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.Text);
int iv = Convert.ToInt32(textBoxVerzeichnisse.Text);

for (int ivw = 1; ivw <= iv; ivw++)
{
textBoxFeedback.Text = "makeing Directory " + sDir + "D" + ivw;

Directory.CreateDirectory("" + sDir + "D" + ivw);

for (int idw = 1; idw <= id; idw++)
{
textBoxFeedback.Text = "makeing File " + sDir + "D" + ivw + "/F" + (idw + idt) + ".TXT";

File.Copy(sInF, sDir + "D" + ivw + "/F" + (idw + idt) + ".TXT");
}

idt += id;
}

textBoxFinal.Text = "Now drag/drop " + sDir + " with Vista Explorer somewhere else";
}
}
}

=== file 2: Program.cs ===
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Windows.Forms;

namespace WindowsApplication1
{
static class Program
{
/// <summary>
/// Der Haupteinstiegspunkt für die Anwendung.
/// </summary>
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
Application.Run(new Form1());
}
}
}

=== file 3: Form1.Designer.cs ===
namespace WindowsApplication1
{
partial class Form1
{
/// <summary>
/// Erforderliche Designervariable.
/// </summary>
private System.ComponentModel.IContainer components = null;

/// <summary>
/// Verwendete Ressourcen bereinigen.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="disposing">True, wenn verwaltete Ressourcen gelöscht werden sollen; andernfalls False.</param>
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing && (components != null))
{
components.Dispose();
}
base.Dispose(disposing);
}

#region Vom Windows Form-Designer generierter Code

/// <summary>
/// Erforderliche Methode für die Designerunterstützung.
/// Der Inhalt der Methode darf nicht mit dem Code-Editor geändert werden.
/// </summary>
private void InitializeComponent()
{
this.label1 = new System.Windows.Forms.Label();
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis = new System.Windows.Forms.TextBox();
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse = new System.Windows.Forms.TextBox();
this.label2 = new System.Windows.Forms.Label();
this.buttonErstelle = new System.Windows.Forms.Button();
this.textBoxFeedback = new System.Windows.Forms.TextBox();
this.textBoxFinal = new System.Windows.Forms.TextBox();
this.SuspendLayout();
//
// label1
//
this.label1.AutoSize = true;
this.label1.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(13, 13);
this.label1.Name = "label1";
this.label1.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(102, 13);
this.label1.TabIndex = 0;
this.label1.Text = "Files on each Folder";
//
// textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis
//
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(132, 13);
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.Name = "textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis";
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(277, 20);
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.TabIndex = 1;
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.Text = "4000";
//
// textBoxVerzeichnisse
//
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(132, 40);
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse.Name = "textBoxVerzeichnisse";
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(277, 20);
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse.TabIndex = 3;
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse.Text = "5";
//
// label2
//
this.label2.AutoSize = true;
this.label2.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(13, 40);
this.label2.Name = "label2";
this.label2.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(41, 13);
this.label2.TabIndex = 2;
this.label2.Text = "Folders";
//
// buttonErstelle
//
this.buttonErstelle.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(16, 69);
this.buttonErstelle.Name = "buttonErstelle";
this.buttonErstelle.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(393, 23);
this.buttonErstelle.TabIndex = 4;
this.buttonErstelle.Text = "Generate !";
this.buttonErstelle.UseVisualStyleBackColor = true;
this.buttonErstelle.Click += new System.EventHandler(this.buttonErstelle_Click);
//
// textBoxFeedback
//
this.textBoxFeedback.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(16, 99);
this.textBoxFeedback.Name = "textBoxFeedback";
this.textBoxFeedback.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(393, 20);
this.textBoxFeedback.TabIndex = 5;
this.textBoxFeedback.Text = "(-)";
//
// textBoxFinal
//
this.textBoxFinal.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(16, 125);
this.textBoxFinal.Name = "textBoxFinal";
this.textBoxFinal.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(393, 20);
this.textBoxFinal.TabIndex = 6;
this.textBoxFinal.Text = "(-)";
//
// Form1
//
this.AutoScaleDimensions = new System.Drawing.SizeF(6F, 13F);
this.AutoScaleMode = System.Windows.Forms.AutoScaleMode.Font;
this.ClientSize = new System.Drawing.Size(421, 162);
this.Controls.Add(this.textBoxFinal);
this.Controls.Add(this.textBoxFeedback);
this.Controls.Add(this.buttonErstelle);
this.Controls.Add(this.textBoxVerzeichnisse);
this.Controls.Add(this.label2);
this.Controls.Add(this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis);
this.Controls.Add(this.label1);
this.Name = "Form1";
this.Text = "simmons Vista Explorer Test";
this.ResumeLayout(false);
this.PerformLayout();

}

#endregion

private System.Windows.Forms.Label label1;
private System.Windows.Forms.TextBox textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis;
private System.Windows.Forms.TextBox textBoxVerzeichnisse;
private System.Windows.Forms.Label label2;
private System.Windows.Forms.Button buttonErstelle;
private System.Windows.Forms.TextBox textBoxFeedback;
private System.Windows.Forms.TextBox textBoxFinal;
}
}

[bbz_Ghost]

I still don't see what the problem is.

Last night I decided to switch over to Xubuntu for a few days to mess with Beryl - which COMPLETELY KICKS ASS I must say - and before doing so I had Vista Ultimate 32 bit installed on an 80GB drive. I needed to back up the data I had on the 35GB partition so I did it in two places: I copied my entire user directory off to the second partition (the remaining space on the drive) and also a second copy (I'm paranoid when it comes to Linux distros, had too many times where GPartEd or GRUB just pooched the whole drive) to a 40GB USB 2.0 external drive.

Total file count: 95,325 files, lots of mp3s, pics, docs, eBooks, all sorts of stuff, and some video files also.

I got exact matches for both after the process was done, soooo... file counts matches, bytesize matched for total size, directories matched, etc. Filesystems are always NTFS so the checksums always matched/never gave any CRC errors.

So I'm not sure what the issue is here, but I just wanted to add my own experience so far. This isn't the first time I've done such a massive copy operation under Vista either in the 900+ installs I've done now for testing purposes (I'm a tester, sue me). I've never encountered a single corrupt file or any issues with checksum/CRC stuff when copying across a variety of methods: partition to partition, partition to external USB drive, partition to external Firewire drive, burn to external USB/Firewire, USB thumb, second physical drive in the same machine, etc.

/me wonders what the big fuss is over...

I'd suspect someone's driver controller and the drivers before I'd suspect Vista itself. If you're using the stock ATA/IDE controllers on most motherboards, especially if it's an Intel chipset, you'll never have issues with the stock drivers in Vista - but anything else like SATA or RAID, especially if they're not made by Intel, well... I wouldn't trust any of 'em myself. Had too many data corruption problems over the years with Promise/HighPoint/Nvidia/ATI/SiS/VIA/Silicon Image controllers and drivers...

But that's just me...

[simmons2]

Hello bbz_Ghost

thank you for replying. you are a lucky man - it seems to work on your 900+ Vista installations. I am not so lucky - with my 3 Vista installations.

Did you copy with Vista Explorer all your files ? Or did you use some other tools ?

I do have those problems on differnet hardwares - and not only with hard disks.

2 of the machines in trouble are Intel D975XBX2 with all SATA HD's from WD. One other machine is a Barebone. A fourth machine is under installation-work now as i have promessed here - that machine is an old Workhorse with some Asus-Board and Intel Processor - this moment i do not know what exactly Board and Processor are - i just install the minimum and i run my test.

simmons

[LstOfTheBrunnenG]

Yeah I did a copy of my entire Program Files folder, over 55,000 files, no problem. Drivers perhaps?

Vista x64 on the system in the sig.

[simmons2]

what does it means "Vista x64 on the system in the sig." - i do not understand.

I use Vista Business 32 bit - the problem occurs with the Vista provided drivers and also with the newest Intel drivers for my IntelD975BXB2. Same story on Barebone with IDE. As i have also those problems copying from USB-HD to Barbone-IDE, the chance of driver problem seems very limited to me.

In a few minutes i can give Infos about another machine setup.

simmons

[bbz_Ghost]

He means he's running a 64 bit version of Vista ("Vista x64") on the hardware/machines (probably just the desktop PC though) he has in his sig(nature) as listed at the bottom of his post.

Although... for some reason he's got XP x64 listed. :)

[Headbust]

I wonder if this has something to do with why my vista 64 ultimate rebooted itself outa nowhere when i was transferring about 15gigs from one partition to another :confused:

[simmons2]

As promised i have set up another system (an Oldie) from scratch - here everything is OK !

Tomorrow i try to analyze - why here OK - why there NOT OK.

Thank you for your help and good Night - i will give you my news, if you like ?

simmons

[Frobozz]

i will give you my news, if you like ?


Please do. I'm curious to see what you find.

[ChronoReverse]

Yes, this is pretty unusual. It would be good to find out the cause.

@ChronoReverse
well I believe your cluster size is 4KB, and I think the bug, here is that its reporting the wrong total filesizes. if there are 32K files and each file is 1KB should not the total file size be 32KB not 352K?

I got your cluster size by total size on disk/1024 to get the units into KB and then dividing by the total number of files.
Cluster size is correct =)

Total size is not a bug since the text file isn't actually 1KB ;)

[Hvatum]

Sounds like a bug which might have been created in the naturlization process of the OS. Personally I've seen this with Windows 98. The Norwegian Version had a number of strange bugs, my family in Norway actually just used the English one because it had fewer problems. It's unforunate that this still might be a problem with Vista, especially when you're naturalizing the OS for the world's second largest economy.

The Norwegian version of XP was fine though. Also, not to put a dent in everyone's testing method, but copying 16K small text files could well produce a different result then copying 16K of a variety of files. If this really is a problem with the naturlized version of Vista then Microsoft should address this immediatly, not being able to copy a measly 16K files is a pretty huge shortcomming when you're dealing with an OS which ostensibly enterprise ready.

[drizzt81]

Sounds like a bug which might have been created in the naturlization process of the OS. Personally I've seen this with Windows 98. The Norwegian Version had a number of strange bugs, my family in Norway actually just used the English one because it had fewer problems. It's unforunate that this still might be a problem with Vista, especially when you're naturalizing the OS for the world's second largest economy.
I was starting to suspect something like that as well.

[markt435]

thank you for replying. you are a lucky man - it seems to work on your 900+ Vista installations. I am not so lucky - with my 3 Vista installations.

uh...if its 900+ as opposed to 3....wouldn't that signal a more of a hardware problem than a software? i just wanna clarify before you cry wolf which you've already done...and ppl seem to have plenty of proof against you.

sounds like some FUD to me....

[CopyCat]

this could just be one of those things. Computers have live of their own sometimes:P

I just transfered about 50k files with no problem on my Vista rig running 32bit Home Premium.

[simmons2]

hello someone who does NOT have my problems

- please give me some UNIQUE indication of your Vista Version, so i can see and compare your naturalization with naturalization of ME and OTHERS (do NOT give me your product ID or some other key, of course ! ). Please tell me, how you got this UNIQUE indication

===

hello markt435

- how many ***Vista's*** did YOU install so far ?

- what means ppl ?

- what means FUD ?

===

thank you all - your "over the ocean de-naturalized and 16KF-degraded" simmons (KF=Kilo Files)

[markt435]

ppl = shorthand for people

FUD = fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

i don't have the problem nor do many others it seems. i've installed vista on 3 diff comps and never seen this. so to me that means it might be more of a hardware problem. but i'm probably wrong like usual lol:p

and i have the final version of vista business x64 if thats what you're wondering.

[simmons2]

Just got a reply in another forum, here the link (look at reply from Max Norris near the end):

http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?p=2611255

PROBABLY Max Norris'es Vista is naturalized as for many of you over the ocean.

simmons

[simmons2]

Hello to one of the Moderators of this Forum

i am involved in discussions about this issue in 6 different forums (techarena, microsoft, here, windowsbbs, thevistaforums and zdnet.de).

if you wish and if you agree i will try to consolidate the discussion in THIS forum - because here i have found the most active members, the most professional suggestions, and the hardest attacks.

what do you think ?

simmons

[GreNME]

I don't mean to be directly adversarial, simmons, but have you considered the possibility that there is something wrong in your environment that may be causing this problem for you? I'm not asking you to post specs or system configs because the problem could be as innocuous as a flubbed driver (as previously mentioned) or bad RAM, and the problem could be something as difficult to pin down as some background process or even a problem with the CPU. I don't think you're lying about your experience, but I do think that you and some of the other examples of people you point out claiming this are making far too great a leap for me to not invoke Occam's Razor in this case.

The thing is, we know there are factors that can corrupt files, especially in transit. We even know that Explorer is notorious for making many (some sould say extraneous) checks, re-checks, and re-re-checks between two locations when moving a file (or, indeed, even browsing a directory). However, I don't think any time since Win9x can I say I've heard of Explorer degrading in such a way, or so quickly (16-17 thousand transfers is not much considering the read-writes that take place just during boot, not to mention everyday use). You are presenting us with a scenario that is not consistently repeatable, and as much as I like to participate in forums I don't like to use them as a source of empirical evidence (though I could qualify ChronoReverse's posts with screenshots as the closest to empirical evidence I have seen so far in this discussion).

Not for nothing, but have you attempted systematically (not in groups or randomly) changing out drivers and verifying that all hardware is installed with certified drivers? The aim here is to do as much as possible to verify as "clean" a system as you can before actually repeating the test. The only way to verify this is an Explorer issue is to isolate Explorer as the only mitigating factor, which means as bare bones an install as possible (meaning no 3rd party software).

Also, this 16,384 number makes me highly incredulous, if only because it is a "gigabyte" multiplied by 16 ( 16,384 is divisible by 1024 16 times ). That is far too low a number to have not been caught by research, beta testing, and even those who have had Vista installed since it was RTM late last year. In other words, news of this would be all over the place by now if this was an actual Explorer flaw, if only because it wouldn't take longer than a few weeks to meet that 16,384 limit. It's simply too small a number to be plausible to the many of us who have tested it in some capacity since it was in beta.

I'm bringing all of this up not because I think you're lying, but because I'm skeptical and I believe you are looking for the culprit behind your problem in the wrong place. I would agree that there is some common denominator in the bug you are seeing, but none of the evidence you've presented isolates Explorer as a culprit so far.

[mket]

Now that you have one system that works, it seems to me the core Vista is ok. I'd look to the differences in the one that works and the one that does. In particular the drivers and storage systems. The one thing they seem to have in common is the HDD. Have you tried a DVD<->DVD or ThumbDrive to ThumbDrive copy eliminating the HDD?

[simmons2]

Hello mket - and all others - and first of all to all of you suffering on the same issue

i think i have found the bug - the probable guilty one ( and that's probably NOT M$ - i'm so sorry Bill ! ) is informed, is verifying, and promessed to feedback very soon to me - as soon as i have this Verification i will inform here.

It's for shure i will tell within the next 12 hours what's going on - what to do - for what to wait.

Please be patient - as act of fairness to a company with a good product.

simmons

P.S.: and probably IT IS a ticking bomb for many of you !!! Re-boot after copying a lot of files (when the chance comes to reach 16'384 Copy-Actions withing the last System Boot)

[simmons2]

Hello GreNME

thank you for your very good words. Please accept that i have tested, verified, tested and verified again. Hardware was the first thing, isolating one from the other another thing etc. etc.

A the end of the street, i (and also others) can look around the corner - the things behind the corner are clearer. When there are so many streets at the end of the corner, there is always a chance to oversee something.

I have presented to you a way to REPRODUCE the problem with a few of very SIMPLE steps - as i can reproduce the problem in DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. Unfortunatly/fortunatly most of you cannot reproduce the problem with those steps - here i was wrong with my suggestion, sorry.

And believe me, personally i can bypass easily this problem - with 1000 alternatives. It's for those that i am helping to come around, and it's for the community that i will help to solve a potential very big problem.

So i agree with almost anything you have written to me ( what i do NOT see as an attack ! ) - but my decision to go that way was coming after lots of investigations.

And my decision for those forums came after many many frustrating attempts to get contact or even help from Microsoft !!!

simmons

[bsoft]

Here's a test file containing 23,328 empty TXT files inside 2,940 folders.

RAR archive (inside another RAR archive):

http://powerofb.com/test.rar

FYI, Vista had no trouble copying these folders on my notebook (Windows Vista Home Premium RTM EN-US, OEM). Explorer took about 125MB of memory and 2 minutes at 100% CPU to do it (1.73GHz Dothan, 1.25GB DDR, Hitachi 60GB 5400RPM Notebook Drive).

[simmons2]

Thank you bsoft

good for you - maybe you will NEVER have this problem - others will, i bet !

I reproduce the problem ANYTIME and EASILY !

Soon (until 20:00 GMT i hope) i will tell here, what situation / condition must be met.

simmons

(lunchtime now in Zurich)

[bbz_Ghost]

JFYI:

The link is down, bsoft... I'd be interested in trying that "test" again now that I'm back on Vista Ultimate. Thanks...

[simmons2]

To all of you involved in this thread who have experianced problems OR have tested on this issue, please post one of the following statements - as soon as possible:

A) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i ***DO*** use Kaspersky
or
B) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky
or
C) i ***DO*** have those problems, i ***DO*** use Kaspersky
or
D) i ***DO*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky

After verifying, i will give you all the details.

simmons

[GreNME]

Hello GreNME

thank you for your very good words. Please accept that i have tested, verified, tested and verified again. Hardware was the first thing, isolating one from the other another thing etc. etc.
I don't think you're doing what I was saying. I believe that you are testing and re-testing, but I believe that, at some point in the process, there is a step that you are taking that others have not that is leading to this problem. I am only judging from what I've read so far, but if you were isolating things, beginning with a bare OS and only the necessary hardware, you have given no indication that you've been doing so. You sound more like you ran into the problem, reinstalled everything, ran into the problem again, reinstalled everything, rinse, repeat. That is not the same thing as what I explained.

A the end of the street, i (and also others) can look around the corner - the things behind the corner are clearer. When there are so many streets at the end of the corner, there is always a chance to oversee something.
Metaphors aren't very helpful here, especially when you are using metaphors to say those of us who are skeptical are unable to see things clearly. I suggest we stick to literals here before we fall into the bad habit of mixing metaphors to the point where discussion becomes useless.

I have presented to you a way to REPRODUCE the problem with a few of very SIMPLE steps - as i can reproduce the problem in DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. Unfortunatly/fortunatly most of you cannot reproduce the problem with those steps - here i was wrong with my suggestion, sorry.
Have you considered the possibility that, since others cannot reproduce the problem with your simple steps, the problem is indeed not reproducable in the scenario you present? Occam's Razor again, the most probable reason that others have not been able to reproduce your problem is because the scenario you give to reproduce the error is not what caused the problems you are experiencing.

And believe me, personally i can bypass easily this problem - with 1000 alternatives. It's for those that i am helping to come around, and it's for the community that i will help to solve a potential very big problem.

So i agree with almost anything you have written to me ( what i do NOT see as an attack ! ) - but my decision to go that way was coming after lots of investigations.
You do see that many others in this thread have performed the very same experiement to the level of much higher multiples than your original 16,384 copy operations, do you not? Can you posit in the least why this is so? Can you tell us how you came to the realization that the number of copy operations was 16,384, which just happens to be the number of megabytes in 16 GB (I do not find such a number coincidental)? You say you are trying to help solve what you perceive as a huge problem, but every explanation or supporting claim you have given thus far has raised more questions about your claims than it has actually supported the original thesis of Explorer failing after 16,384 copy operations. Your main supporting claim is that others have said they've experienced similar problems, but so far no reliable means of reproducing the error have surfaced. Consensus among a few is not compelling enough information to support your allegations thus far. I'm open and willing to find out more, but I need more evidence than "other people have seen it as well, though not everyone can reproduce the error" as your evidence.

And my decision for those forums came after many many frustrating attempts to get contact or even help from Microsoft !!!
I don't know what you are expecting with regard to Microsoft. As far as I know about the company's practices, you would get more assistance if you could reliably reproduce the error for them and offer them the methodology to do the same. Most individuals I've had contact with at Microsoft-- most recently on two support cases, on with Vista and the other with Exchange-- the most important thing I had to do was provide the MS tech with as much and as precise amount of information as possible. If what you have provided thus far in this thread is the extent of your available reference info on the problem, I can see why it wasn't entertained.

Are there any instances in your testing where you noticed any change in the system during the copy process? Have you perhaps tried running Process Monitor (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/utilities/processmonitor.mspx) from the SysInternals suite yet while reproducing the error? Have you attempted any other type of monitoring while producing the error? In the hardware stuff I mentioned previously, have you had your system down to only the motherboard, video card, and as few RAM chips as possible plugged in while creating this error? Have you anything out of the ordinary in your event logs? Are there any devices not accounted for in your Device Manager?

All of these and dozens more questions are critical in working out the direction any investigation on your problem will take. You need to be able to answer these questions with detail and as much pertinent information as possible. That is the only way to determine the most likely method of reproduction for submittal to Microsoft, and it may even lead to the root cause of the problem.

[GreNME]

To all of you involved in this thread who have experianced problems OR have tested on this issue, please post one of the following statements - as soon as possible:

A) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i ***DO*** use Kaspersky
or
B) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky
or
C) i ***DO*** have those problems, i ***DO*** use Kaspersky
or
D) i ***DO*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky

After verifying, i will give you all the details.

simmons
Interesting question. I don't have the problem, and I do not use Kapersky. Count me as a B.

[simmons2]

Hello GreNME

thanks for B-judgement. But have you tested it (if did NOT, then your judgement is a "non valeur", sorry) ?

to the rest of your writing (i had NOT the time to read it fully, but from the beginning it was clear for me: you did NOT follow what i have done till now - you even did NOT read what i posted YESTERDAY concerning my intentions for my NEXT STEPS TODAY !): i tested an verified and tested and verified ... that's a lot of work ... a lot of work to isolate one aspect from the other.

maybe one day i can go deeper into your writing, so maybe my understanding will be better ... and my english.

simmons

[jimmyb]

Can you tell us how you came to the realization that the number of copy operations was 16,384, which just happens to be the number of megabytes in 16 GB (I do not find such a number coincidental)?
More importantly it's 2^14. Now I'm not alleging that this is what's happening, seeing how it's not happening to me, but it's pretty common for software to fail on numbers like these.

[simmons2]

Hello jimmyb

actually it's NOT happening on EXACTLY 16'384 - on the GUI-perspective (but it is always some points below 2'n - i hope "they" will do better then DOUBLE or so when patching). I just wanted to lever all of you up to the potential source of the problem - as it worked fine with you, jimmyb - bravo !

simmons

[Frobozz]

B) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky

description of my test system is on the bottom of page 2

[Grimlaking]

i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky

[As I Lay Dying]

Yes, this is pretty unusual. It would be good to find out the cause.


Cluster size is correct =)

Total size is not a bug since the text file isn't actually 1KB ;)

I figured that was wrong, hmm....I am gonna punch you, now I gotta figure out this.....bug....

hmm....is it that transferring 0 Bytes takes 5+ seconds?? The only other thing I can spot is the ass backwards way to renames the copy folders as it literally seems increment the number some times sometimes it adds another -copy to the end of the folder.

[simmons2]

I hope you do it BEFORE dying !

[MrMike]

B) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky

[simmons2]

Hello serialtoon !!!

Your case is NOT typical - but anyway, please tell me if you use Kaspersky or not.

simmons

[Nasty_Savage]

Is this a LEGAL copy of windows that's been properly activated? Because I have the 32 bit version and the 64 bit version running since october and have had zero non driver issues whatsoever...

If this is a VLK version, you do know you need to have a server piece on your windows domain servers to manage the licenses right? :)

[ElaborateDream]

Not seeing the problem, and I work for Microsoft. //I'll periodically check-in on this thread.

[simmons2]

Hello Nasty_Savage

It is all legal ! You are probably looking in the wrong direction, thank you anyway. In one hour i well tell here my opinion, unproven, but verified by several people.

simmons

[calebb]

B) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky

Yes, I tested for this specific issue.

[Nasty_Savage]

Well if its all legal and your windows activation isn't borked then it has to be something with the naturalized version, because the English RTM versions of both 32 and 64bits have been working flawlessly for me for 4 months (Ultimate version on both BTW). No kooky re-boots, no file copy issues and I do transfer quite a bit of files on my home network and at work.

[simmons2]

Hello Nasty_Savage

sit and wait - in 45 Minutes you will know more - probably irrelevant for you, i hope.

simmons

[simmons2]

Hello

First of all thank you all around the world, from different forums, for your assistance to figure out the source of this big problem - for a ticking bomb to many other users ! Thanks to my wife, dog, psy etc. etc.

Finally i had to figure out myself what's going wrong - but tip's and so from all you professionals was very helpful and necessary.


Problem:

You can NOT copy more than 16'384 files with Vista Explorer (maybe the same for other copy and move actions outside of Vista Explorer) without a System Reboot - no matter if you do this amount of copy actions in one single step / peaces, or if you do it in multiple steps / peaces - no matter if you do it over minutes, hours, days months. As soon as you reach this limit of 16'384 files that have been copied / moved from somewhere to elsewhere, the system becomes unstable - and you MUST re-boot your system to have a stable situation again - up to the next 16'384 file-copies/moves.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUT THIS SEEMS NOT TO BE AN ERROR OF VISTA, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE AN ERROR OF ***** Kaspersky *****.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I called Kaspersky this morning (Mr. Michaelis, Germany) and explained him the situation and how to reproduce easily the error. I told him to verify immediately and to mail feedback to me. Till now i did NOT get a mail from Kaspersky. As i told Mr. Michaelis that i will in any case inform the community today, i do it NOW without feedback from Kaspersky.

I think Kaspersky Internet Security is a good product, they just have some kind of bug - it seems.


What's happening:

probably, for performance reasons or so, Kaspersky uses fixed sized tables somewhere to store files they had "in theyr hands" - and the table management is not OK or not what we need.


How can we bypass til Kaspersky has fixed the problem:

Version a) boot from time to time - before you reach that limit of 16'384 files

Version b) un-install Kaspersky --- it is NOT enough just to DISABLE Kaspersky, you will fail anyway on that limit !!!

Version c) use some other tool to copy/move files, maybe it works (probably it works, when the tool BYPASSES Kaspersky !!!)


How did i verify:

- about 15 people suffering on that IDENTICAL problem have confirmed to me using Kaspersky (32 Bit and 64 Bit)

- 2 people suffering on that IDENTICAL problem have confirmed to me, after UN-INSTALLING Kaspersky all went FINE, after RE-INSTALLING Kaspersky all went WRONG

- myself, if have tested and verified, again and again, all kind of situations / combinations.

- some people have tried to reproduce the problem with simple steps, but the error did NOT occur --- all of those people did NOT use Kaspersky

simmons

[calebb]

Nice investigative work, Simmons2!!

[Nasty_Savage]

Hmmm. Perhaps its a language barrier or I just misread something but I was under the opinion you said you specifically did NOT run Kapersky? Well glad you have figured it out. www.nod32.com for a Kapersky alternative. I can confirm to you that it works just as well as Kap and it does not have that problem.

[simmons2]

Hello Nasty_Savage

No, this one was NOT a language bareer - i just made an mistake when telling that, sorry ! Myself i thought i tested it WITHOUT Kaspersky - that was wrong, i suppose. I walked in the trap of just disabling Kaspersky - and NOT to un-install it.

simmons

[Frobozz]

Good job Simmons!

Now I think I'll go try installing Kaspersky for fun. :D

[ChronoReverse]

hmm....is it that transferring 0 Bytes takes 5+ seconds?? The only other thing I can spot is the ass backwards way to renames the copy folders as it literally seems increment the number some times sometimes it adds another -copy to the end of the folder.
Hehe.

It's not the time to copy since Windows still needs to create the empty files.

The incrementation only occurred because I copied one folder. Then I copied the original and the copy. Then I copied the original, the copy, the second copy and the copy of the copy. And so on. So it's actually expected behavior (and frankly better than XP's "Copy of" prefix IMO).


@simmons2
Good to know that you've tracked down the likely cause of this problem. It's good to see someone take feedback (poignant or even almost flaming) well and then work hard to track down the true source of the problem once informed that your first hunch wasn't correct.

[Frobozz]

I just installed the kaspersky Internet Security 6.0 trial on my testbox and received the error.

good job Simmons. You get a star.:)

[As I Lay Dying]

Hehe.

It's not the time to copy since Windows still needs to create the empty files.

The incrementation only occurred because I copied one folder. Then I copied the original and the copy. Then I copied the original, the copy, the second copy and the copy of the copy. And so on. So it's actually expected behavior (and frankly better than XP's "Copy of" prefix IMO).


@simmons2
Good to know that you've tracked down the likely cause of this problem. It's good to see someone take feedback (poignant or even almost flaming) well and then work hard to track down the true source of the problem once informed that your first hunch wasn't correct.

lol tell me, hahahhaha....

[simmons2]

Hello ChronoReverse

Sure, my first hunch wasn't correct - but very close ! Unfortunately i do not have acces to the code involved. Even now there is a chance for other explanations - we will see. But probably - i hope - the problem will be eliminated soon.

simmons

[ChronoReverse]

lol tell me, hahahhaha....

Note the number of items Explorer thinks it's copying and the number of items remaining :rolleyes:
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8892/88472400oz8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[simmons2]

RIP

[GreNME]

NICE CATCH, SIMMONS! Many kudos to your persistence on this!

There are times when someone would not want to admit they are wrong. This is not such a time: simmons, I was incorrect in my thinking that you had mistaken my posts on methodology, and that you were possibly not isolating the culprit. I'm glad to say I enjoyed being wrong on this one, because your performance is a perfect example of the great nature of this forum, and how it can contribute to the community at large in a way that is useful, quantifiable, and makes the experience better for us all.

I just wanted to thank you for your work on this. Great job.

More importantly it's 2^14. Now I'm not alleging that this is what's happening, seeing how it's not happening to me, but it's pretty common for software to fail on numbers like these.

Not such low numbers, which was what I was focusing on. I know software would usually fail on a number divisible by 2 (and, most likely, also by 8 and possibly 10), but the exponents are usually far higher before failure occurs. At least, that's been my experience.

[As I Lay Dying]

Note the number of items Explorer thinks it's copying and the number of items remaining :rolleyes:
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8892/88472400oz8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

hahhaha oh my that was so obvious, I knew it was gonna be something like that, where is the smash head into keyboard emoticon???

[bbz_Ghost]

One thing I'll add from my own experience so far with Vista:

It sure seems a lot slower to me overall when it comes to file copy/move operations. I drag a bunch of stuff from one place to another and it just seems sllooooowwwwwww compared to previous versions of Windows. Copy/move something to or from a USB thumbdrive with USB 2.0 support and it just seems sllooooooowwwwwwww compared to previous versions of Windows.

I mean, copying a single 1GB file (a VOB file just for testing) from one partition on the drive to another - an 80GB 7200 rpm 8MB buffer drive on an ATA100 controller - and Vista says it's transferring at 3MB/s? Say it ain't so, Billy-boy, say it ain't so...

I'm not going to do benchmarks since it's a waste of time, all I can do is say I think it's slower than previous versions of Windows.

YMMV, as always.

[Alias2]

One thing I'll add from my own experience so far with Vista:

It sure seems a lot slower to me overall when it comes to file copy/move operations. I drag a bunch of stuff from one place to another and it just seems sllooooowwwwwww compared to previous versions of Windows. Copy/move something to or from a USB thumbdrive with USB 2.0 support and it just seems sllooooooowwwwwwww compared to previous versions of Windows.

I mean, copying a single 1GB file (a VOB file just for testing) from one partition on the drive to another - an 80GB 7200 rpm 8MB buffer drive on an ATA100 controller - and Vista says it's transferring at 3MB/s? Say it ain't so, Billy-boy, say it ain't so...

I'm not going to do benchmarks since it's a waste of time, all I can do is say I think it's slower than previous versions of Windows.

YMMV, as always.

Tell me about it. Its slower than hell, it seems to spend alot of time "Calculating Time Remaining". Like I care, just move my files.

[simmons2]

Hello

Thank you for thank's, bravo's, sorry's, go on's and so forth.

But that's not for me, that's for all of us, for the whole system (internet, how we use it, those made the basis decades ago, etc.).

First of all i think the go on's are for all of us - from problem reporter's to problem solver's - of course even for the man in the middle who makes his jokes and critizices. The most important rule (as i se it) is an acceptable level of respect to the opinion of the other's (what worked perfectly here, i think). So we always move forward, in little and in bigger steps.

Concerning THIS issue (about those 16'384 file limit) i will KEEP QUIET - FOR THE MOMENT !!!

KEEP QUIET - because now we can deal with the situation.

FOR THE MOMENT - because, even when Kaspersky or some others have patched, there is something to discuss SERIOUSLY about this issue (as representative example of similar situations).

Do you know what i mean ? Can you spot THIS ONE, ChronoReverse ? Those can spot it who had the error message on screen - like Frobozz (except me the only one in THIS thread ?). Most of you, i am sure, profit of many years of IT experiance. Those of you with architectural background will be welcome to participate such discussion - when interested, then prepare yourself as Frobozz did ( it's not to complicate to install Kaspersky and run the test - and then kick out Kaspersky ). Just look at the Error Message and ... think, think, think - but glide away a little bit.

Until Kaspersky or so has acted, i will KEEP QUIET now. Then i come back - to introduce another thread here, if not already done by one of you.

simmons

P.S.: do you think my english is lausy - or just horrible ?

[drizzt81]

P.S.: do you think my English is lousy - or just horrible ?I've read worse. You conveyed the meaning to the people that needed to understand it. If language is designed for communication, you have achieved your goal.

Congrats on solving the mystery.

[sliderip]

I have had the same problem , a bit different.

If i use COPY command to copy 5 Gig of data to another server Vista takes for ever to do that , very slow.

If i use ROBOCOPY to do the same thing it does that in 20 mins or so. I do not know why ?

If i do the same thing from a non-vista machine i.e. copy 5 G from Vista share to another server it takes about 20 mins.

Average speed with ROBOCOPY is 300 MB/Min , for larger sized files.
Average speed with ROBOCOPY is 7 MB/Min for ~1K sized files.

Thats a huge difference, any explanation and 'fix' for that?
Any help is appreciated.

[Big Kev]

Thanks simmons2, You've saved me a whole lot of pain trying to work out what this problem I was having.
Another way for a temp solution is to ZIP or RAR the files, this works fine.

Also, I mailed Kaspersky, and they said around a week.

Cheers
Kev

[PIRATA!]

Hi!
I write from italy and first of all I have to thank simmons for the great job he made.

I am in this situation:

C) i ***DO*** have those problems, i ***DO*** use Kaspersky

I own a registered version of Kaspersky AntiVirus (non InternetSecurity) and have these "out of memory" messages while copying files form a disk to another.


I have upgraded to Vista 32bit on a brand new machine with new hdds.
I had to copy all my stuff from my old hdds to the new ones.

I have noticed these "out of memory" error while copying "too much times", NOT "too much stuff at a time".

I mean that I always copy about max 30Gb at a time, and most of the times I copy less amount of files, and never more then 16'384 files at a time, but after a few times I copy these chunks, I get the "out of memory" message.

The only solution I found is to Log Off and then Log On back and repeat the copying that just fails before I logged off.
This means that I have never rebooted to copy all my stuff.


Please let us know when this problem will be fixed!
Thank you.

[MrMike]

Use AVG Free instead of Kaspersky dude.

http://free.grisoft.com/doc/5390/lng/us/tpl/v5#avg-anti-virus-free

Since you're replying to the thread, then you've read it and know the issue is Kaspersky.
AVG works well.

[PIRATA!]

Use AVG Free instead of Kaspersky dude.

http://free.grisoft.com/doc/5390/lng/us/tpl/v5#avg-anti-virus-free

Since you're replying to the thread, then you've read it and know the issue is Kaspersky.
AVG works well.

I have a Kaspersky licence and I want to use it!
Kaspersky products MUST function right since I pay them!!!!

[PIRATA!]

This night I have transferred about 200Gb for an amount of files that it should be more then this 16,384 limit with Kaspersky installed and with no "out of memory" error appearing.

Has Kaspersky solved the problem and sent automatic updates to all users??

[Zardoz]

First of all great find, I was using Kaspersky as I have been looking at new virus software. I have now removed Kaspersky. I have used AVG in the past, and wanted to check it out again, but it looks like AVG assumes that a person running Vista x64 in not a home user and will not install the free version, nor will it install a trial version. so I am stuc with the pro version, but this is a pay product and right now I am looking to test it. So with this AVG fails my test. any other good scaners that I can get a trial for Vista x64 thanks...

[calebb]

This night I have transferred about 200Gb for an amount of files that it should be more then this 16,384 limit with Kaspersky installed and with no "out of memory" error appearing.

Has Kaspersky solved the problem and sent automatic updates to all users??

Any other confirmation that this bug has been fixed? I have a client using Kaspersky on a Dell Laptop w/Vista; He hasn't run into file copy errors (and has definitely copied more than 16,384 files) but his system is running particularly slow considering it is a nearly clean install w/ 2GB RAM & 2.33GHz C2D proc.

I might just ask him to uninstall Kaspersky tomorrow, but he probably won't be happy since he just purchased his license...

[PIRATA!]

Any other confirmation that this bug has been fixed? I have a client using Kaspersky on a Dell Laptop w/Vista; He hasn't run into file copy errors (and has definitely copied more than 16,384 files) but his system is running particularly slow considering it is a nearly clean install w/ 2GB RAM & 2.33GHz C2D proc.

I might just ask him to uninstall Kaspersky tomorrow, but he probably won't be happy since he just purchased his license...

I might have a slow system too.
How can you say that the computer you refere is slow?
Are you talking only about the disk reading or "everything"??
What hdds does it have? What are its HDTach Scores?

Thank you.

[calebb]

I might have a slow system too.
How can you say that the computer you refere is slow?
Are you talking only about the disk reading or "everything"??
What hdds does it have? What are its HDTach Scores?

Thank you.

I'll investigate it again on Friday.

Everything seems sluggish. It's a Dell Optiplex w/ 2.33GHz C2D and 2GB RAM. It should be smokin fast, but there is a lot of latency in Outlook 2007 & IE7. I'll provide more details when I have them! (I know that this user is a fan of Kaspersky and he mentioned that he uninstalled SAVCE and replaced it with a recent version of Kaspersky... it could be Symantec remains causing him issues as well... or a driver issue)

[mcluckey]

Hello

...

How can we bypass til Kaspersky has fixed the problem:

Version a) boot from time to time - before you reach that limit of 16'384 files

Version b) un-install Kaspersky --- it is NOT enough just to DISABLE Kaspersky, you will fail anyway on that limit !!!

Version c) use some other tool to copy/move files, maybe it works (probably it works, when the tool BYPASSES Kaspersky !!!)


...

simmons

Thanks a LOT

Version d) open Windows Task-Manager kill the explorer.exc process an restart it with new task -> "explorer"

maybe it work better when you close you kaspersky client (Version 7.0.0.125, right klick on symbol quit) so the task and processes will closed and not stopped.

Sorry for my bad english, i m from germany :-)

Greethings

mcluckey

[HellFire18]

Has this issue been reported on Kaspersky forums?

EDIT

I have just reported it on the Kaspersky Forums.

Thread link:

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=50914

Chris.

P.S. I have this issue and I am using KAV 7.0.125.

[HellFire18]

My question to Kaspersky:

----------

Please read this thread for more details:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1162423&page=5

(in particular this post)

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=10...mp;postcount=84

I have just experienced this issue, with KAV using Vista Ultimate x64. As soon as I un-install the issue goes away.

Has this now been resolved? I am uneasy about using Kaspersky with Vista until this issue has been resolved.

Regards

Chris Morley.

Response from Kaspersky

-------

Yes, but is not a bug in Kaspersky. Microsoft support has patch for this: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942435/

So it would appear Microsoft have developed a Hotfix for the issue described in this thread now. I assume this Hotfix is included in Vista SP1 Beta or is it available through Windows Update ??

Cheers, Chris.

[ZX81]

I have been banging my head against a wall here with trying to move over a large folder from a 2nd drive during a vista reinstall, googled the out of memory error and found this thread eventually

Yes I have Kinternet security too

I've filled in the form for the hot fix

Great thread, thanks for taking the time to trouble shoot this and work out what was broken

Cheers!!!:D