Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)
tranglos:
Tranglos,
I think you are trying to use MF to do versioned backups (at least that's what fileHamster does). And my guess is that MF is designed for synch'ing not for versioned backups (although most of these programs can be used for both see e.g., the very name of synchBack).
-urlwolf (October 02, 2008, 12:52 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, that's true. MF does versioned backups though, it just does them poorly IMO. It's excellent if you need the real-time copy, but for anything else there are better implementations.
Stoic Joker:
I'm still trying to figure out why you're backing up client machines to anything...Critical data should never be stored on a client machine. If user folders are stored on the server, then they're already there to be backed up when the time comes, and you can use the (built-in to windows) offline files to do a real time (bi directional) sync of the files back to the client machine if there are server availability issues to keep the files available to users.
Backing up a bunch of clients to a server, that is then backed up to something else can't possibly scale well at all (too many steps/failure points/administrative overhead).
f0dder:
Stoic Joker, I agree fully with you - and hopefully that's going to be the direction the museum works now. I couldn't have talked them into it if it wasn't for the museum fusion/merger thingy, thuogh, hence why the original post (before that fusion was planned).
Cleaner007:
For <MOD: removed link> i use <MOD: removed product> - simple and effective. Very recommend 8)
edit by jgpaiva: removed link for repeated SPAM
vsg-good:
For <removed> i use <removed> - simple and effective. Very recommend 8)
-Cleaner007 (October 02, 2008, 12:59 PM)
--- End quote ---
Thanks :Thmbsup:. Looking a good file sync app for a long time.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version