Google Drive Download Batch
Samatha Zwiefelhofer
A batch request consists of multiple API calls combined into one HTTP request, which can be sent to the batchPath specified in the API discovery document. The default path is /batch/api_name/api_version. This section describes the batch syntax in detail; later, there's an example.
A batch request is a single standard HTTP request containing multiple Google Drive API calls, using the multipart/mixed content type. Within that main HTTP request, each of the parts contains a nested HTTP request.
Each part begins with its own Content-Type: application/http HTTP header. It can also have an optional Content-ID header. However, the part headers are just there to mark the beginning of the part; they're separate from the nested request. After the server unwraps the batch request into separate requests, the part headers are ignored.
The body of each part is itself a complete HTTP request, with its own verb, URL, headers, and body. The HTTP request must only contain the path portion of the URL; full URLs are not allowed in batch requests.
The HTTP headers for the outer batch request, except for the Content- headers such as Content-Type, apply to every request in the batch. If you specify a given HTTP header in both the outer request and an individual call, then the individual call header's value overrides the outer batch request header's value. The headers for an individual call apply only to that call.
When the server receives the batched request, it applies the outer request's query parameters and headers (as appropriate) to each part, and then treats each part as if it were a separate HTTP request.
The server's response is a single standard HTTP response with a multipart/mixed content type; each part is the response to one of the requests in the batched request, in the same order as the requests.
--batch_6VIxXCQbJoQ_AATxy_GgFUk-- Return specific fields from the requestBy default, the server sends back a default set of resource fields specific tothe method used. For example, thefiles.list method might only return theid, name, and mimeType. These fields might not be the exact fields youneed. If you need to return other fields, refer toReturn specific fields for a file.
On my Windows Server 2008 R2 machine, a batch file is scheduled to run using Task Scheduler. For some reason, only a portion of the commands in the batch file are executed; Some MS DOS commands are ignored.
When I run the batch file by double-clicking on it, everything runs as intended; But when it is executed from task scheduler, only the sqlcmd portion runs correctly. The copy command does not seem to run.
The Y:\ is a mapped drive under the same login. After typing my question this far, I went back and ran one more test. Interestingly, if I replace mapped drive with local drive, everything seems to be working okay. So, at this point it looks like mapped drive is the problem. Any ideas on resolving this?
This should work. it creates an array of all drives connected that can be accessed from a for loop. you can do what ever you want with the drives now. i have provided two examples to show how it works.
The main limitation with this code is the existance of a CD/DVD drive with no disk. It causes a carp for the user to insert a disk. If you have all CD/DVD drives mapped to Z: you could avoid the carp by removing the final Z in the set.
Hey guys
i'm relatively new to system administration and the only one of my kind in the company. so i can't ask anyone a quick question here.
to get a little closer to the topic of scripts i wanted to install the whole software, which has to be installed on new pcs, in a batch file.
the batch file is on a network drive and the setup files are on the same drive.
if i now start the batch file from a computer, the installer opens. now i click on install but it can't find some files and it can't install. with a double click on the installer, everything works.
that means the batch file opens the installer differently than a double click. how can i start the installer as if i had executed a double click?
batch:
Batch file processing does not understand network folder depth past the first layer. This "\\myserver2\DATEV\dvd12\1\Start.exe" is an unknown to a batch file, too many levels. Add and change a couple of lines:
_______
Add somewhere:
net use q: \\myserver2\DATEV\
So my plan is making a raid 10 consisting of 4 x 6 TB reds for 12 TB storage space, question is that I've heard (and had it explained) that it's good to buy drives from different production batches since otherwise there's a higher likelihood of several of your drives failing at once thus kinda invalidating the whole purpose of investing into safeguarding your data from failure. I've made sure to order mine from different dealers to lower the risk but I'd like to cross-check to make sure, and if I have a couple from the same batch I can spread them out to different raid 1s before combining them into raid 0.
So as said in title my question is, what of the text here shows which batch it's from? I tried using evil censorship company Google but as usual it misdirects me into miscellaneous stuff with no relevance to my original query. Providing a picture so you guys can see the information I'm talking about.
Yeah they're a fair bit cheaper where I live but I imagine it being a pain making a raid out of them rather than just backupping shit. The externals have a tendency to use random drives from a selection of the cheapest they could find and you shouldn't use different drives to create a raid, not to mention the issue of cracking up the casing if you wanna put them in your chassi which means zero warranty.
Raid 5 was already getting outdated a decade ago wasn't it? Seeing as almost all drives have a URE rate of 1^14 or once every 12TB, if I make a raid 5 and have a drive fail and have to restore data with 3 x 6TB drives probability says I'm very unlikely to succeed in restoring it. That's why raid 6 has been a thing since it uses two drives for parity so even if you have one fail you can still afford one URE showing up.
Why not just use raid 6 then you might ask? Partly because a shared trait between it and raid 5, namely that the recovery process takes a hell of a lot longer with parity drives rather than backup drives, and the longer you have to use in order to rebuild the data (1+ days isn't unlikely for large drives) the larger the chance of something going wrong during the process and you being unable to complete it. Basically the larger the drives are the worse they are to use for parity drives, personally I would stop to consider them an option once you start using drives over 4TB or have a very large total filesize (which is where technology is driving which makes raid 6 increasingly irrelevant).
Raid 5 - For those who have only 3 drives of 4TB or less and don't wanna get more, an array of many smaller drives or wanna have extra storage compared to raid 6 and don't care that much about data safety or performance of the unit but would rather do something than nothing at all. Was a good option 10-15 years ago when file sizes still were fairly small but with how large they've gotten today and the likelihood of hitting at least 1 URE thus loosing all your data makes it hard to recommend
Raid 6 - For those with 5 or more drives of medium size or many smaller ones, but wanna protect themselves more compared to raid 5 but don't wanna lose as much storage as with raid 10 for the extra level of safety and performance so a middle-ground between them. Same as with raid 5 still not that great an idea to use with either large drives due to the recovery process or a large total size of the array due to the increased likelihood of hitting more than 1 URE.
Raid 10 - Basically the business standard unless they're on a tight budget, used with 4 or a larger even number of drives of any size that's poor in terms of storage efficiency (with half of it going away in syncing the drives) but much better in terms of safety and everyday performance compared to raid 5 and 6. One thing that's worse though compared to raid 6 is that with raid 6 you can lose any of the two drives in the array to disc failure/URE and still be fine, but with raid 10 you can get extremely unlucky and have the multiple failures/UREs on the same raid 1 in the raid 10 system. Still the recovery process being so much safer since you're just syncing rather than restoring data from parity and you being able to potentially lose 50% of the drives in the system and still be fine more than makes up for it so it isn't completely perfect but better. Main reason people use raid 10 over 6 is the performance though, which is the best among the options after raid 0 so it depends about what you wanna prioritize.
Note that there are special drives you can get with an URE rate of 10^15 rather than 10^14 which would make raid 5 and 6 look a lot better if you're using a large number of smaller drives, but seeing as the VAST majority of drives (even among new ones) out there has 10^14 this is more an exception to the rule than a factor in raid decision making. I believe WD Gold has 10^15 but that's like 1.52x times more expensive than my reds so yeah, not really a great option for common people building raids at home.
df19127ead