Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

quote:

---

Originally posted by kierant
That's fair enough, but I think he just wants them to be synchronised to avoid it being tedious. I know it's not hard to do as you suggest, it's just a bit of a pain because obviously they would have to do this on a regular basis.

---

He wants to have all his logs double, aka: one is the copy of the other, he doesn't want to syncronize the two directories.

And even if he does, simply copying one to the other and vice versa with the xcopy command and /d parameter will syncronize them. No need to complicate stuff if such things are strait forward and already build in...

---

By synchronizing I mean when one directory is updated with logs, the other directory is also updated at the same time, and they are always exactly the same. Maybe I'm using the term in the wrong context but my point is that christof asks if his logs can be 'recorded' in two directories and therefore I assume he means together.

Although I don't personally see the need to have them stored twice, nonetheless, I have to disagree that copying and pasting is the best option. It's probably the simplest way, but as I said, it's a bit of a chore to copy them every now and then - and humans being humans, will probably forget at some point and the two directories will have different info stored in them and one will kind of be redundant.