DonationCoder.com Forum

Main Area and Open Discussion => General Software Discussion => Topic started by: urlwolf on October 23, 2008, 12:45 PM

Title: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: urlwolf on October 23, 2008, 12:45 PM
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!
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: 40hz on October 23, 2008, 01:50 PM
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.techsoftpl.com/backup/index.php

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.


Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: aphoria on October 24, 2008, 01:45 PM
What about using Live Mesh?

www.mesh.com (http://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.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: city_zen on October 24, 2008, 11:56 PM
Any ideas?
-urlwolf (October 23, 2008, 12:45 PM)

This may be a different approach, but it'd achieve the same thing: use Microsoft Office Live Groove (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/groove/HA101656331033.aspx) or one of its free clones (I'd recommend Collaber (http://www.collaber.com/))

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.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch prog
Post by: VideoInPicture on October 25, 2008, 12:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: nudone on October 25, 2008, 02:18 AM
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).
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: cmpm on October 25, 2008, 04:55 AM
this should do it
if you want to spend money

http://www.theutilityfactory.com/summaries/distribute-files-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.download3k.com/System-Utilities/File-Disk-Management/Download-Automatically-Copy-Files-to-Multiple-Folder-Locations-Software.html
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: cmpm on October 25, 2008, 05:26 AM
a simple sync program
open source
batch capable

http://sourceforge.net/projects/freefilesync/
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: f0dder on October 25, 2008, 07:05 AM
I believe MirrorFolder was first mentioned in this thread (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=10657.msg84315#msg84315), there's some more talk of it in this thread (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=10745.msg85146#msg85146), and even more in this thread (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=133.0). 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)
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: justice on October 25, 2008, 07:35 AM
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.
             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.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: Darwin on October 25, 2008, 09:29 AM
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?
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: urlwolf on November 22, 2008, 08:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: f0dder on November 22, 2008, 09:15 AM
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...
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: Darwin on November 22, 2008, 09:55 AM
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 (!).
-urlwolf (November 22, 2008, 08:50 AM)

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!
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: Armando on November 22, 2008, 11:34 AM
actually, it's the reverse... it should be implemented with a filter driver. ;)
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: Darwin on November 22, 2008, 01:30 PM
actually, it's the reverse... it should be implemented with a filter driver. ;)
-Armando (November 22, 2008, 11:34 AM)

What? You expect me to read? C'mon...  :P
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: mwang on November 23, 2008, 01:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: cranioscopical on November 23, 2008, 07:24 AM
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...
-mwang (November 23, 2008, 01:05 AM)
That's an interesting post, thanks.

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

Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: f0dder on November 23, 2008, 12:18 PM
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.
-mwang (November 23, 2008, 01:05 AM)
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 :)
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: mwang on November 23, 2008, 08:14 PM
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 :)
-f0dder (November 23, 2008, 12:18 PM)
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.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: cmpm on November 23, 2008, 09:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: Shades on November 23, 2008, 10:03 PM
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 (http://www.cockos.com/pathsync/)  :Thmbsup: , a small (and free) syncing program that is able to copy (sorry for being too lazy to look for the DC thread).
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: 4wd on November 23, 2008, 10:27 PM
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 (http://www.cockos.com/pathsync/)  :Thmbsup: , a small (and free) syncing program that is able to copy (sorry for being too lazy to look for the DC thread).
-Shades (November 23, 2008, 10:03 PM)

What about rsync (http://www.samba.org/rsync/) - free and does delta copying.

Usually a part of most Linux distros too, IIRC.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: Shades on November 23, 2008, 11:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: 4wd on November 23, 2008, 11:45 PM
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.
-Shades (November 23, 2008, 11:14 PM)

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.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: mwang on November 24, 2008, 03:06 AM
I've been trying out Syncplicity, Dropbox and NomaDesk for the past few weeks, and I've learned a few things regular reviews on the web ignore. Before getting to them, however, let me briefly state what I'm looking for and what other similar products I exclude.

I'm tired of sync'ing my desktop to my notebook before leaving home, only to miss the train. (I know, I know, I shouldn't wait till the last min. to do anything.) I tried briefly to sync directly through VPN with SFFS or Beyond Compare, but the process is too slow (due to the paltry uplink bandwidth of my home adsl) to be a long term solution.

So I'm looking for something that does sync'ing, sharing and versioned backup over the internet. As a result, products/services that do only sync'ing and sharing (like Foldershare) or only backup (Mozy) are not considered.

I also exclude two very popular services--Jungle Disk and Sugarsync--for they don't have free accounts. In addition to my own family, I'm also trying to set up file sharing with my students/assistants. With JD/S3 I might be setting myself up for a $30-50 bill per month, which I can't afford. (My school isn't going to pay for the cost.) Sugarsync is probably less expensive, but it doesn't allow you to exclude certain types of files from sync'ing. I would tolerate it if it's a free service (like Dropbox).

One other concern kills another popular choice--Microsoft Live Mesh--for me: privacy. JD/S3 is the only truly trust-worthy choice for files are encrypted on the server, and you're the only one with your own private key. Most others do encrypt the files on the server, but the company keeps the keys. They depend on internal security control to prevent employees or hackers from reading your files. (Syncplicity says it keeps the keys on a separate server, not sure about the others.) Not ideal, but I can cope (by encrypting critical files myself).

MS Live Mesh nevertheless stands alone in not encrypting files on the server, relying solely on internal security measures. So despite its generous storage policy (5 GB free), I won't try it.

OK, that narrows the field to 3 contenders (I'm sure there're others; suggestions are welcome), and here are my comments:


Dropbox has been widely praised for its simple interface and good performance. It's deserved, but somewhat misleading. It's simple because it lacks flexibility its competitors provide, most notably the ability to sync more than one folder and to exclude files/folders from sync'ing. They do say both are high on their priorities, and should be delivered early next year.


Nomadesk is relatively unknown, with a smaller user base (judging purely from the traffic of its support forum). And yet it has a great service. It doesn't sync your current files per se. Instead, it creates virtual drives wherein you could drop files you want to sync/share. Files on the virtual drives are stored locally inside an encrypted image file. It's like a Truecrypt drive with sync'ing/sharing and online backup capabilities. Very cool!

Better yet, it has a unique feature called TheftGuard. Say your notebook is stolen. You reports it and the next time that notebook tries to sync with Nomadesk, its content is erased.

Like Dropbox, it does delta-sync, so the performance is good. Better, it allows you to exclude certain types of files from sync'ing, and you could retrieve backup versions right in your file manager via context menu.

With its current implementation, however, what makes Nomadesk great is also its weakness. Since it works only as virtual drives, it means massive drive remapping for me if I want my shortcuts/symlinks and path-specific application settings to work. It also means each share has to take up a drive letter, even it's lightly used. They say they are looking into the possibility of allowing a share to be mounted as a folder instead of a drive.

Another problem: as a virtual drive, some characteristics of a physical HD partition is lost. E.g., the recycle bin doesn't work anymore. Yes, you could retrieve backup files from them, but what if you're off line?


This is the service I ended up keeping, for now. It's Windows only, though Mac client is on the way. Linux support is unknown, though it's been repeatedly requested on their forum.

That aside, the lack of delta-sync is its only real weakness against the competition. Watch Syncplicity repeatedly uploading the whole Evernote database is a pain. I've since excluded Evernote files from sync'ing automatically, but that's not an ideal solution. They do say they're working on it, though.

There are other smaller issues, in no specific order:

1. While Syncplicity is great in allowing users to sync any folder, greater flexibility is needed in where to put a sync'ed folder and how it's named. E.g., I set up Syncplicity to sync my wife's whole data partition (D:), which isn't that big anyway. When I set up her other desktop, however, Syncplicity wouldn't allow me to use d:\ as the location for the sync'ed folder, insisting on a sub-folder, not the root. This is a huge problem for she has many file shortcuts, folder links and application settings that depends on specific paths.

The same issue arises when you share a folder with another user. My wife and I share some folders, but through Syncplicity they are named differently on our desktops. On mine, e.g., it's "xxx", on hers, it's "xxx (my_name)". Again, this breaks all the shortcuts, links and settings depending on specific paths.

My temporary workaround is to use subst and symlinks to mimic identical paths, but it's not only cumbersome, in the case of subst I loose the system Recycle Bin on the virtual drive (same problem with Nomadesk's approach).

2. Speaking of shortcuts and symlinks, Syncplicity doesn't seem to backup those. I don't need it to follow the links and fetch the original files/folders (though it would be great as an option), but I do need those shortcuts (.lnk files) and folder links sync'ed, so I could use them on another machine. (I didn't notice this problem with Dropbox or Nomadesk, but I wasn't paying attention to this when I tried them so I can't be sure.)

Correction: On closer look, Syncplicity does follow folder symlinks/junctions and sync the files within. I hope this can be made optional. Many of the folder symlinks on my system are set up to prevent duplicates, and I prefer Syncplicity to keep the links as links. File symlinks are sync'ed into zoero-byte documents at the other end. Useless, but at least I know there should be a file and its name, so I can hunt it down (since it's a link originally, there has to be a real file somewhere). Shortcuts (to files/folders alike), OTOH, are simply ignored. No trace of them on the target system at all.

3. Compared to desktop backup utilities, usability is still lacking. E.g., exclusion management could be easier. I can exclude a file from the context menu in my file manager, but not a folder. I'd also like the ability to manage exclusions from a central location (interface), so I could quickly exclude a host of files I don't want sync'ed. (For the moment I hack the "user.config" for this purpose.)

Likewise, There're folders in which I want only certain types of files sync'ed. Can't do that now. But this criticism applies to all three I've tried, and IMO Syncplicity is better of the three.

That's all for now. Hope it's useful for some, and hope to learn of others' experience.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: Darwin on November 24, 2008, 10:59 AM
Great post, mwang  :Thmbsup: Thank you for sharing this - it'll be a big help as a reference when others (such as yours truly) set out upon this journey... With very little editing, you could post this as a mini-review. Better yet (from a DC reader's perspective, not necessarily from yours), you could edit this more extensively and extend it to make it a fully-fledged DC review.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: mwang on November 25, 2008, 07:11 PM
Darwin,

Thanks for your encouragement. I dare not attemp a fully-fledged DC review for I don't have the time (and, in this case, money) to try all of the big names out there. A mini-review did cross my mind initially, but then I'd have to include more comprehensive information for each service. The way I did it, I could omit information covered elsewhere (like storage size limit for free accounts and pricing), such as the big table on Lifehacker (http://lifehacker.com/5064688/online-storage-feature+by+feature-comparison-chart). (Edit: links added.)

That said, I do feel guilty not giving back enough after learning so much on DC. I'll try to update it and make it a mini-review when I have the time.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: tomos on November 26, 2008, 05:38 AM
yes, very helpful post mwang, thanks!

me, I'm now using 2 online backups (but currently more interested in backup than synching)


obvious disadvantages are two processes running ...


Nomadesk sounds very good - but the links to files would be a major problem for me too
I dont think I'd be willing to go for that, especially when there's not yet any price structure in place

Synplicity - I find the 99$ a year for 50GB too expensive, although I know it's a common price (same as DropBox I think)
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: mwang on November 26, 2008, 03:32 PM
Thanks, tomos. A quick question: doesn't JungleDisk do delta-sync as well? Why do you need Dropbox for that?

Syncplicity is indeed too expensive at $99 a year, and there have been repeated calls for more pricing options (such as 10GB or 20GB plans). We'll see. Its free account is more generous with 4GB free, and you could easily earn 3GB more by recruiting 3 new users. That's enough for me.

Sugarsync defends its no-free-account policy by saying it's unfair for paid users to subsidize free accounts. I think it's a fair consideration. And they do have multi-tier pricing, with options I could afford. But free accounts make it much easier for me to invite others, and to setup group folders for my students.

I would like to hear your comments about JungoleDisk/S3. I'm quite ambivalent about S3's pricing scheme. While they bill it as an advantage (pay only what you use), it makes me feel like going back to dial-up internet connection which charged by the minutes. I remember being hyper-sensitive with my online time, disconnecting my line whenever I loaded a long page into the browser, or right after collecting mail from the server. With JungoleDisk/S3, chances are I would habitually use my old method (sync locally) as much as possible to reduce cost, and end up missing trains again.
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: tomos on November 27, 2008, 02:41 AM
from JungleDisk help manual -
# Previous Versions

    * Use the bucket previous version settings for this backup job:  All settings as configured in the Previous Versions section will apply to this specific backup.
       
    * Customize the previous version settings for this backup job:
       
          o Keep previous versions of changed files: Copies of the previous versions of files are maintainted when you modify the file or upload a new file with the same name.
             
          o Keep previous versions of deleted files: Copies of files that are deleted either manually or during backup cleanup are still maintained.
             
          o Don't keep previous versions for files over: Files larger than the specified size will not be archived when modified or deleted.
             
          o Keep at most: Allows you to select a maximum number of versions to keep regardless of the file's age.

if I understand correctly - it doesnt do delta-sync  - [EDIT/ see Justice's post below]

I still have *very* little on it (around the 1GB mark) so costs are very low - I'm only using it for *important* stuff ;) plan to add a few more GBs but am avoiding large files unless, as I say, important...
I'm looking for an online backup for my photos as well - wouldnt add them to S3, although I havent actually figured out the costs (60GB or so - see below) - maybe I should go do that cause having three online backups would seem a bit ridiculous!

Okay, lets see,
60GB @ 15c per GB p.m.would be $9 p.m. = $108 per year (+ an upload fee of $6)   !!ouch!!

Havent been using JD/S3 long - there are a couple of threads about it here if you want to read more

BTW Syncplicity's free account is 2 GBs now - guess the 4 was for early takers
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: justice on November 27, 2008, 03:42 AM
It delta syncs but only if you pay the 1 dollar a month for the extra plus service.
Optional Jungle Disk Plus Service
Jungle Disk Plus is an optional service that provides additional features beyond what comes with Amazon S3.
[...]
    * Block-level file updates, allowing you to upload only the changed portions of large files
-http://www.jungledisk.com/desktop/pricing.aspx
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: f0dder on November 27, 2008, 03:44 AM
Heh, pretty lame that block-level updates is an add-on cost... I mean, it saves both you and them bandwidth :-s
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: justice on November 27, 2008, 03:47 AM
I assume it's because they have to process it in someway to make it work with amazon s3, but I mean that's not our problem really, and I guess it's why they sell it with more features like webbased access to your files, which should also have been included imho. Go dropbox.

Although in reality when you need it the Plus service will not be a significant cost rise (I assume you'll spend about $5-10 a month by that time), and it's a flat fee (it doesn't rise the more you use it like regular JD costs).
Title: Re: Writing to two folders simultaneously. Possible? Tired of running synch progs
Post by: mwang on November 27, 2008, 08:10 AM
I forgot the delta-sync cost etra $1 per month with JD/S3. My fault. Sorry.

BTW Syncplicity's free account is 2 GBs now - guess the 4 was for early takers
-tomos (November 27, 2008, 02:41 AM)
It's 4GB if you use the "SYNCBLOG" code when signing up, according to their blog post (http://blog.syncplicity.com/2008/11/03/beta-is-over/). That's how I got mine set up two or three weeks ago, and it should still work. According to the same post, you could add 1GB per friend invited, up to 3.

Heh, pretty lame that block-level updates is an add-on cost... I mean, it saves both you and them bandwidth :-s
-f0dder (November 27, 2008, 03:44 AM)
I don't think it saves them anything. You pay for the bandwidth yourself, don't you? Or am I missing something?