Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 03, 2016, 09:44:50 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs  (Read 12280 times)

urlwolf

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,797
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I think I've seen someone here showing a program that lets one write to two folders simultaneously. I just cannot find it. Is this possible? Tired of running synch progs, like SFFS.

The idea would be to have an external HD plugged into my home comp. Then, everything I write to the internal HD on my home computer will get instantly mirrored to the external HD.

I jump into the train, and take my external HD with me. At work, I plug it in and do a sync (with say beyondCompare). Then, every file I change in the office computer gets mirrored to the external HD as well. when back home I run sync again.

But damn! This doesn't save much time. I still have to run two synch sessions! It's so damn hard to keep to computers completely parallel, it's comical.

I have spent hours undoing stupid things I did with SFFS before; having proper backups and syncs is actually a lot of work.

The other alternative is to have everything running on the external HD only. And of course backup the hell out of it. That would save 2 syncs a day.

Why on earth is this so difficult? I was happier when I had only one laptop. :)

So actually, what I'm asking here (simultaneously writing to internal and external HD as if they were in RAID 2) doesn't spare me the syncs, so there's not much of a point.
Any ideas? 

Thanks!

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
If you actually need to mirror in real-time as opposed to just sync your files, your best bet would probably be Techsoft's MirrorFolder.

Link: http://www.techsoftp...com/backup/index.php

Quote
MirrorFolder is a real-time mirroring and synchronization software to backup files from your local computer drive to another local/removable/network drive.

You can setup mirrors for your important folders, or even an entire drive, to another local/removable/network drive in either automatic synchronization or real-time mirroring mode. Once you setup mirror(s) for a folder, mirroring/synchronization will be done silently in the background without requiring any further effort or attention from you. You may also optionally archive older versions of mirror files inside a series of zip files in a third location periodically.

Some common uses of MirrorFolder are:

    * Mirroring on local hard disk - MirrorFolder is ideal for real-time mirroring on a separate local hard disk. In this mode, files in the mirror folder will remain identical with their source at any point of time. In case the source disk fails, you will have all of your files on the mirror folder/disk for immediate use. You may also use auto-synchronization mode of mirroring on local hard disk and choose to move older versions of files in the mirror folder to recycle bin duringsynchronization.

    * Backup on removable drive - MirrorFolder can be used for automatic backup of your important working folders on removable drive like USB flash drive, removable hard disk, etc., preferably in automatic synchronization mode. You may also enable archive option to store older versions of files in a series of ZIP files into a third location.

...

    * Synchronization between laptop and desktop computers - You can use MirrorFolder to synchronize files between your laptop and desktop computers using bi-directional automatic synchronization mode.

    * Synchronization between home and office computers through a USB flash drive - You can use MirrorFolder to synchronize important folders between your home and office computers using bi-directional automatic synchronization mode through a USB flash drive.

MirrorFolder will set you back $39, but you get full use of the program for 30 days before you need to buy a license.
That should be plenty of time for you to decide if it's worth it. :)


You also might consider just keeping your files on a USB drive and working off of that. If you go this route, be sure to backup regularly, and also use some form of encryption if your files are sensitive. Also try to stick to quality brands and avoid the 'no-names.' Not all USB drives are created equally.


« Last Edit: October 23, 2008, 02:07:11 PM by 40hz »

aphoria

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
What about using Live Mesh?

www.mesh.com

Seriously, check Live Mesh out. No manual syncing involved. No transporting an external HD back and forth. Install the client on one machine, setup one or more folders to sync, setup the client on the other machine, connect to the synced folders and you are done. Changes to files in one place are nearly instantly updated on the other computer.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2008, 07:03:29 AM by aphoria »

city_zen

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Any ideas?

This may be a different approach, but it'd achieve the same thing: use Microsoft Office Live Groove or one of its free clones (I'd recommend Collaber)

Actually, if all you want is synchronizing your 2 PCs you may even be able to use Office Live Groove for free. I'm not sure if this would be acceptable under Microsoft's License, though, so you'd have to check it out. Otherwise, it's $ 79 for the first year. As I said, Collaber is free.

To get all your docs synchronized you'll have to leave both PCs on (and online, of course). Synchronization would be automatic and instantaneous. Besides, each PC would serve as a backup of the other. Also, notice that all the information would remain in your PCs, NOT in Microsoft's servers, so you'd be able to work on your docs even when you're offline (they'd just not get synchronized with the other PC until you get back online).

I think it may suit you.
I'll have what she's having
« Last Edit: October 25, 2008, 12:31:58 AM by city_zen »

VideoInPicture

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
    • Circle Dock
    • Donate to Member
How about simply using one of the online storage websites like https://www.getdropbox.com/

You can download their client that sits on your computer and it creates a special folder that gets synchronized across all the computers where you are running the DropBox client. Synchronization happens in real time.
Author of Circle Dock: http://circledock.wikidot.com
Author of Video In Picture: http://videoinpicture.wikidot.com
Author of Webcam Signature: http://webcamsignature.wikidot.com
Author of Easy Unicode Paster: http://easyunicodepaster.wikidot.com

nudone

  • Cody's Creator
  • Columnist
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,117
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
good question, urlwolf, and good reply, 40hz.

i'm now using 'mirrorfolder'. i was using 'genie-soft backup manger pro' but 'mirrorfolder' is a lot more useful.

it's just a pity it doesn't have built in ftp support (not that i can see anyway).

cmpm

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 2,025
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
this should do it
if you want to spend money

http://www.theutilit...iles-and-folders.htm

buy i can't help but think that it can be done without this utility
but i don't know

for anything under 2gb for free-syncplicity or dropbox
$10 a month gives 40gb for syncplicity and 50gb for dropbox
but that is not what i would want-a monthly payment

Collaber is free as city_zen has said
that looks interesting

depends on the type of files for other suggestions

edit-
here's a less expensive idea for the task

http://www.download3...ations-Software.html
« Last Edit: October 25, 2008, 05:13:28 AM by cmpm »

cmpm

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 2,025
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
a simple sync program
open source
batch capable

http://sourceforge.n...ojects/freefilesync/

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
I believe MirrorFolder was first mentioned in this thread, there's some more talk of it in this thread, and even more in this thread. It's probably the program that will suit you the best, since it does real-time mirroring with the help of a filesystem filter driver.

What does this mean?

1) No sync step
2) only changed parts of files will be updated (1 byte change doesn't necessitate copying an entire multi-gig file)
- carpe noctem

justice

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,898
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
If you don't want to spend money, alternatively it's easy to just run robocopy on startup with the /MOT:m option where m is how often you want to sync again, in minutes.
Quote
             Repeated Copy Options
            /MON:n : MONitor source; run again when more than n changes seen.
            /MOT:m : MOnitor source; run again in m minutes Time, if changed.
http://www.ss64.com/nt/robocopy.html

so robocopy c: d: /MOT:5 would sync every 5 minutes any changes from c to d. If you setup a scheduled task to run it on logon or as a service you would never see it.

Not as clever as MirrorFolder though, by description I'd go for that, you might get better performance out of MF.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2008, 07:43:15 AM by justice »

Darwin

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,984
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Thanks for reminding me about MirrorFolder, 40hz. I'm going to have to check it out. Now that I am doing more than simply backing up my data and settings (for which SFFS was perfect for me) and actually trying to keep two computers synched, this may be an good - and reasonably priced - solution for me  :Thmbsup:

Have you tried it yet, Jim?
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin

urlwolf

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,797
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
For those considering mirrorFolder but owning a license of SFFS (Darwin?).  I noticed that SFFS can now do simultaneous writing to two folders with a synch profile that runs in real time (!). So no need to get mirrorFolder just for that. It works well, I'm amazed at SFFS. It's really powerful and my favorite synch tool, although I have posted here often how I shot myself in the foot with it at times.

I still think the interface in SFFS is not the best, but the functionality definitely is top-notch.

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
urlwolf: is it implemented with a filter driver, though? If not, a single byte-change in a gigabyte-sized file will cause the entire file to be synced...
- carpe noctem

Darwin

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,984
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
For those considering mirrorFolder but owning a license of SFFS (Darwin?).  I noticed that SFFS can now do simultaneous writing to two folders with a synch profile that runs in real time (!).

Thanks for that urlwolf! I haven't gotten around to checking out MirrorFolder yet, so will start with SFFS. I'll pay attention to f0dder's caveat, though  :o Hopefully, it's NOT implemented with a filter driver!
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin

Armando

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,727
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
actually, it's the reverse... it should be implemented with a filter driver. ;)

Darwin

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,984
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
actually, it's the reverse... it should be implemented with a filter driver. ;)

What? You expect me to read? C'mon...  :P
"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin

mwang

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I tried MirrorFolder a few months ago (v. 4.1.192, which should be identical to the current version feature-wise according to the version history). While it's good, I gave up for the following reasons (according to my notes, so some specifics are lost; sorry.):

1. not flexible in file/folder exclusion (compared to Beyond Compare or SFFS). To its credit, MF does allow setting up "filter sets" that can be reused in different profiles. (Side note: no backup/sync software comes close to Retrospect in this regard, IMO, which unfortunately has too many flaws to recommend.)

2. can't preview what's included and what's not. (not critical if you just want to sync absolutely everything.)

3. Slow at scanning large partitions. (Probably doesn't matter with the RAID-1 mode, which has its own catch. see below.)

4. only one profile per source. This killed the deal for me. I would like to sync my main data partition to three destinations, each with different settings. Could't quite figure out a way to do it with MF.

5. delta copying not working? (maybe I was doing something wrong, and they may have fixed it in the current version.)

One more thing (not a bug since it's by design) that should be considered: as some have pointed out, the most impressive feature of MF is the real-time RAID-1 mode. But when in that mode, MF duplicates every single writes to the destination -- including, e.g., writing to temp files -- and could hamper performance if the destination is on a slow/busy connection.

I'm currently using Syncplicity. I'll say more about it (and Dropbox and other similar services) later.

cranioscopical

  • Friend of the Site
  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 4,366
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Thanks to everyone for this thread, it's just the kind of useful stuff that makes DoCo so good.

I gave up for the following reasons...
That's an interesting post, thanks.

Quote from: mwang
I'm currently using Syncplicity. I'll say more about it (and Dropbox and other similar services) later.
I'd be interested to read more from you on this topic, when you have the time.


f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
One more thing (not a bug since it's by design) that should be considered: as some have pointed out, the most impressive feature of MF is the real-time RAID-1 mode. But when in that mode, MF duplicates every single writes to the destination -- including, e.g., writing to temp files -- and could hamper performance if the destination is on a slow/busy connection.
As long as you're just backing up data files (which is all you should be backing up, anyway), this isn't that much of a problem, imho :)
- carpe noctem

mwang

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
As long as you're just backing up data files (which is all you should be backing up, anyway), this isn't that much of a problem, imho :)
That really depends on one's specific environment and usage patterns. I do have separate system and data partitions, and I only back up data partitions. Still, not all temp files are written to the system partition. Many applications write temp files in the same folder as the data files.

If the destination is another local drive, it matters very little. If it's on another partition on the same drive, it means more wasted access time. It became noticeable if it's on a slow and busy wireless or powerline LAN connection, and even more so on a VPN over the internet.

Personally, it didn't matter that much. Other things mattered more.

cmpm

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 2,025
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Backup in real time program, that may help.
It says as soon as the files change it is backed up.
So real time monitoring and choice of folders as well.
Free.

http://www.codessentials.com/index.html

Yadis! Backup

    *  It's FREE
    * It's small
    * It's easy to use
    * You can fully decide what to backup
    * It copies one on one your files to allmost any destination you want
    * You don't need Yadis! Backup to access the backed-up files
    * The marked folders are backed-up real-time (no scheduling needed!). You make a change? Yadis! Backup makes a backup
    * When your backup destination isn't available, Yadis! remembers the changes you have made. Whenever the location becomes available Yadis! starts backing up the changes.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2008, 09:07:56 PM by cmpm »

Shades

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,096
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
A few months ago I gave Yadis a spin. It looked OK, but it was not able to copy files from my (windows) system to a (linux) server.

The funny thing is that I can read/write/delete in the storage folder on the linux PC with all the file managers at my disposal, but Yadis was not able to copy one bit of information...so it was wiped from my system. 

Granted, almost none of the suggested backup and/or syncing software is able to copy to the Linux PC (which runs on OpenSuse 10.1). A fellow DC'er (Kartal, I believe) suggested pathsync  :Thmbsup: , a small (and free) syncing program that is able to copy (sorry for being too lazy to look for the DC thread).

4wd

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 4,471
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Granted, almost none of the suggested backup and/or syncing software is able to copy to the Linux PC (which runs on OpenSuse 10.1). A fellow DC'er (Kartal, I believe) suggested pathsync  :Thmbsup: , a small (and free) syncing program that is able to copy (sorry for being too lazy to look for the DC thread).

What about rsync - free and does delta copying.

Usually a part of most Linux distros too, IIRC.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2008, 10:30:53 PM by 4wd »

Shades

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,096
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
You're right, I should start playing with that one (but I like to play with nice GUI tools and stuff ;))

Honestly, I don't like my server to be looking for data on the LAN and store it. The idea of each machine in the LAN dumping the the data on the server charms me more.

True, this method is more headache administration wise but it simplifies the setup of the backup software (Bacula) immensely on the server and I can muster the discipline to sync my windows PC before I go out to lunch and go home.

Simple plans do not have many points on which they can break, and the last thing I want or need is my backup procedure being broken because of a stupidity.

I cannot help it but having one computer doing all the stuff to create backups (searching the LAN, copying over the LAN, making an .iso file of the incremental changes, checking the validity of the iso, burn the iso and check the validity of the burned disc)...it is like putting all eggs in the same basket.

My LAN is not big, so I rather take the administration headache over putting my trust in one system alone.

4wd

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 4,471
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
You're right, I should start playing with that one (but I like to play with nice GUI tools and stuff ;))

Honestly, I don't like my server to be looking for data on the LAN and store it. The idea of each machine in the LAN dumping the the data on the server charms me more.

I think that's the way rsync works, the server runs rsync as a service and the other machines run it as a client or on demand.

That is, the server sits there twiddling it's thumbs until one of the clients pokes it in the ribs and says, "Take this will ya."  So the server doesn't go looking for anything.

Don't quote me on that though, I've had a very limited play with it and only with respect to my NAS.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2008, 11:48:08 PM by 4wd »