Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
alternative to filehamster?
mwang:
What's a good alternative to filehamster?
it crashed on my windows server 2008 64 machine, and it was a tad too pushy to get the pro version anyway...-urlwolf (September 07, 2009, 12:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
Back to urlwolf's original issues. I'm testing FileHamster 1.7.0.3573 after learning of its new tiered versioning feature (called Dynamic Revision History in FH lingo). So far it hasn't pushed anything yet, and I can turn off the huge banner at the top even with the evaluation version, something I couldn't do the last time I tried (more than a year ago).
They also have just announced new product tiers: Basic ($29), Advanced ($79, but currently at $49), and Enterprise ($99). Not sure how they compare to the old scheme. Is Basic = old "free", and Advanced = old "plus" (was $30 or so)? Seems quite a price hike if it is. (Haven't visited their web site for a long time, so I might have remembered the old price wrong. Sorry if that's the case.)
(edit: missed "how" before "they compare" in the above paragraph.)
It's stable, no crash so far after some 40+ hours on my Windows 7 x64 machine. Time will tell.
mwang:
You could grab sqlite.exe / sqlite3.exe from here and have a look-see at what tables those files contain :) -f0dder (September 10, 2009, 03:57 AM)
--- End quote ---
It seems too formidable a tool for me, command line only and such, so I used Firefox's Sqlite Manager extension to open the two biggest databases instead. As far as I can tell, your guess (of SpiderOak storing checksums/hashes locally) is probably right. A screen shot of partial database structure is attached below, for your entertainment. It's only partial for that's the most I could get on one screen, but should be enough to give you some clues.
alternative to filehamster?
tomos:
They also have just announced new product tiers: Basic ($29), Advanced ($79, but currently at $49), and Enterprise ($99). Not sure they compare to the old scheme. Is Basic = old "free", and Advanced = old "plus" (was $30 or so)? Seems quite a price hike if it is. (Haven't visited their web site for a long time, so I might have remembered the old price wrong. Sorry if that's the case.)
-mwang (September 10, 2009, 04:45 AM)
--- End quote ---
they havent setup the upgrade path yet so it's not fully clear
'FileHamster Advanced' (currently $49) is "Comprised of the old FileHamster +plus features [i.e the old paid version] and nearly all of the plugins"
Some of the plugins cost (when you got them separate) - I bought one for $10 or so.
But with this repackaging (it seems to be simply a repackaging :() you dont have a choice - you are basically paying for all the plugins
The new basic is the same as the old +Plus (paid version) but without any of the plugins - no zipping of backup would be what I would mainly miss - to me it's asking a lot to pay (anything) for any backup programme that doesnt zip your backups... but maybe I've been spoiled?
tranglos:
It's stable, no crash so far after some 40+ hours on my Windows 7 x64 machine. Time will tell.
-mwang (September 10, 2009, 04:45 AM)
--- End quote ---
If you really want to stress-test FileHamster, and if this is anywhere close to how you would be using FH, try copying a large number of (small) files to a folder that FH is monitoring. Try a thousand files at a time. (This is what I sometimes have to do when receiving projects from a particular client). If FH is configured to make initial revisions of new files, it will start copying frantically. Watch CPU and memory use when that happens.
I don't have a link ready, but I remember reading a post by one of FH authors (on their support forum) stating that FH creates a new thread for every file it copies. If this is true, it's a really poor design. Starting a thread is "expensive" in CPU terms, and starting hundreds of threads at the same time is an awful idea. This is what "thread pools" were invented for. If you also have the "bubbles" (notifications) enabled, you can see FH memory use reach a gigabyte or so, as it creates hundreds and hundreds of windows. This might still (barely) work if if were written in C++, but a .Net app doing that sort of thing can really bring down the system.
I bought the Plus version and used have it for almost two years, but have recently switched to AJC, which is less powerful but orders of magnitude leaner.
tranglos:
The new basic is the same as the old +Plus (paid version) but without any of the plugins - no zipping of backup would be what I would mainly miss - to me it's asking a lot to pay (anything) for any backup programme that doesnt zip your backups... but maybe I've been spoiled?
-tomos (September 10, 2009, 06:37 AM)
--- End quote ---
This is what it looks like so far. Here's a thread I started on the FH support forum.
The thread has also produced another real-time backup alternative, which has not been mentioned here yet, I think: http://www.beanland.net.au/AutoVer/ (not tested)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version