I backup/Sync my files everyday, sometimes several times a day. Hence, speed and space has become a concern.
I did some "loose benchmarking" today. Here are some results.
"Methodology" (if there's such a thing in this experiment):
- Created a backup job which basically syncs a bunch of big files (750 MB, 470 MB, etc.) and a few smaller ones.
- I tried to configure all programs so that they perform as fast as possible, and I did include the delta copying on software offering it + caching of files on database when available.
- All Programs are copying files and folders to the same External hard drive (USB 2)
Red : slow compared to others Bold and black : Fast compared to others.
NOTE THAT BVCKUP IS STILL IN BETA.1 Initial Run Not sure why Super Flexible File Synchronizer took longer here. SyncBack is real fast in that test.
SyncBack 00:02:16 SyncToy 00:03:02
Bvckup 00:03:07
SFFS 00:03:252 I then renamed all the folders to be backed up. SFFS and SyncToy are able to rename folders and files, so they are incredibly fast in this test.
SFFS 00:00:00
SyncToy 00:00:00 SyncBack 00:02:25
Bvckup 00:03:053 I then renamed a couple bigger files. Again : SFFS and SyncToy are able to rename folders and files, so they are incredibly fast in this test.
SyncToy 00:00:00
SFFS 00:00:00 SyncBack 00:01:50
Bvckup 00:02:114 Added a new 464 MB text file to the folder SyncToy is the fastest, here, SFFS is pretty slow. Not sure why, again (like in test 1)
SyncToy 00:00:28
SyncBack 00:00:32
Bvckup 00:00:33
SFFS 00:00:39
5 I then modified the content of the 464MB text file to see how Delta copying would affect performance SFFS and Bvckup are clearly faster here. Must say that in most test I did, Bvckup is faster than SFFS. I tried changing some parameters in SFFS to make it faster, but it was never as fast, except in a few test. I tried to use the "Use Cache Database For Source" but I got weird results...
Bvckup 00:00:13
SFFS 00:00:13 SyncToy 00:00:28
SyncBack 00:00:28
6 Made modifications to the 464 MB file and then left it open and tried to copy it. Bvckup is clearly the fastest in this test, like I suggested in #5.
Bvckup 00:00:05 SFFS 00:00:19
SyncBack 00:00:37
SyncToy Nothing was copiedSome thoughts...
As you see, they all have some problems in some situations...
- SFFS is probably the most rounded of the bunch, albeit a tad slow for some rather simple copying tasks.
- SyncToy I won't loose sleep waiting for it to include delta copying and use of VSS. But, it's pretty quick other wise... I you close all files before backup, and don't modify big files too often. And don't care about versioning etc. (which I haven't tested anyway)
- SyncBack is good, but lacks 2 very important features IMO : awareness of file/folder renaming/moving and delta copying.
- Bvckup (BETA) is probably the one with the most potential. It's generally quick, but ignores file/folder renaming/moving
I could've tested Oops!backup, But lacked space and time. Maybe next time. I'd be very surprised if it was that fast for pure syncing though as it 1) always fully backups modified files, 2) and copy the "reverse delta" portion of the file somewhere else. Oops! doesn't seem great when you work with video and music : hard drive quickly fills up if you want to keep a fair amount of versions.... I should do more testing though
IMO, if Bvckup could manage file/folder name changes, file/folder moves, etc. it might be the most interesting of the bunch. Surely, the Delta copying implementation is better than SFFS. But... Still a few things missing as it's beta.
Recent Posts
(wonder how SFFS approaches this...)
-tomos (October 18, 2010, 02:06 PM)
