Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)
tomos:
from the surfulater archives :)
IBM's Tivoli Continuous Data Protection http://www-306.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/continuous-data-protection/. Note: I DO work for IBM, so I get this software for free vs the $36 USD normal price. If I had to pay for the Tivoli software, I'd likely just use the free software that came with my Diskstation....not because Tivoli software is lacking.....my impression is it is top notch but I am just cheap and typically lean towards freeware if available. Be it Tivoli or Diskstation software....they both use the same approach....a real time data copy based on a set of rules. So I tell it what files to copy (be it filename matches, filetype matches or folder matches) and as soon as I save a file which meets the criteria, it copies it to a backup. It also can save multiple versions and target files require no special software to open.....meaning the files are not imaged but real file copies. I prefer this real-time backup as opposed to a scheduled backup -johnfdeluca (May 11, 2007, 09:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
Ralf Maximus:
I've checked out MirrorFolder a bit, and it seems very very very promising.
-f0dder (November 10, 2007, 05:27 AM)
--- End quote ---
Wow, MirrorFolder looks insanely cool. And for $39 US it seems reasonable. I assume buying a single license allows one to synchronize to another workstation/server? The FAQ doesn't say. My excitement would diminish a bit if I have to buy a license for the target PC/server also.
This is a heavy duty piece of low-level engineering, BTW. Installing as a volume filter means if MirrorFolder isn't 100% solid 100% of the time you'll become friends with the BSOD. I learned this with SuperCache-II, which is also a volume filter. SC-II is rock solid, except for one feature which, when activated, makes file activity on my system a game of random chance. So I have that aspect of the program turned off and everything's fine.
Not saying volume filter technology is evil -- far from it -- but unlike application level code, if it tanks it takes the whole system down with it. It does suggest that it be tested thouroughly in the target environment before making a decision.
f0dder:
Wow, MirrorFolder looks insanely cool. And for $39 US it seems reasonable. I assume buying a single license allows one to synchronize to another workstation/server? The FAQ doesn't say. My excitement would diminish a bit if I have to buy a license for the target PC/server also.
-Ralf Maximus (November 10, 2007, 11:31 AM)
--- End quote ---
Can't see why it should require a license, you're only installing on the client machine... and the app does seem to be UNC path aware (I mapped drive X to a server path, but the GUI shows the UNC path drive X is mapped to. I did the drive mapping because I couldn't find a way to enter user credentials, only straight UNC paths).
This is a heavy duty piece of low-level engineering, BTW. Installing as a volume filter means if MirrorFolder isn't 100% solid 100% of the time you'll become friends with the BSOD. I learned this with SuperCache-II, which is also a volume filter.
-Ralf Maximus (November 10, 2007, 11:31 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yup - that's why I installed under vmware and not on my main box. Haven't stress-tested it, but it does work. And there's both 32- and 64-bit versions available, which gives me at least some confidence.
It does suggest that it be tested thouroughly in the target environment before making a decision.
-Ralf Maximus (November 10, 2007, 11:31 AM)
--- End quote ---
That too - once I've done preliminary testing here, I'll have to install it on one of the museum's PC's and let it run in trial mode for a couple of weeks, and spot problems. Hope it doesn't interfere with things like antivirus etc.
But it sure does look promising!
Armando:
I really like the "filter driver" feature. f00der : does that seem to translate into real performance gain (mirroring time) ?
f0dder:
I really like the "filter driver" feature. f00der : does that seem to translate into real performance gain (mirroring time) ?
-Armando (November 10, 2007, 04:22 PM)
--- End quote ---
I haven't tested it extensively yet, and I'd say it depends on what you're doing (although I can't imagine it would ever be slower than other methods). If you have some large files, it definitely should be faster, since only the changed portions are going to be synced. And not having to scan a potentially deep folder tree for changes on a fs-change event notify can also save time.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version