Author Topic: SyncBackSE vs. SuperFlexible (Read 88253 times)

tomos · « **Reply #25 on:** November 06, 2007, 03:45 AM »

I'm not a fan of the SFFS interface - I agree its poorly designed in terms of user interaction.

In terms of setting up a backup, if you simply go through everything you *should* be covered
Saying that I have been caught by an overlooked setting -
which can be easy to do cause it takes a while to follow/understand it all - I've found
Generally I copy a Profile I'm happy with for a new profile & work from there

I generally start scheduler manually each morning -
I dont want it running till i start working
but
I'm sure the scheduler works - worked for me before anyways -
Options: restore previous windows & scheduler states. should cover you?

That with having to disable scheduler I've gotten used to

By default SFFS insists on zipping each file individually - expect fun manually unzipping thousands of files, one by one, if you ever need to access the backup without SFFS!
-tranglos (November 05, 2007, 04:24 PM)

$:-\$ eh,
with winrar at any rate I just select the zip files I want to restore (edit: i.e. all selected same time!)
right click - extract here
& the original folder hierarchy is recreated
In fact for restoring a lot of files I find it a very good solution

I have restored stuff - from one folder - but not to original folders, & found it so easy I havent even used SFFS for it
Copying to original location then should be no problem too
I guess if you want to restore a whole bunch of stuff from different folders you'd need to use SFFS

Also, I've personally had no problems extracting encrypted zip files with Directory Opus and Win Explorer

Tranglos, have you tried DirSync ? (see post #13) I havent but if you've tried everything else...

PS/EDIT: just noticed, on my system SFFS is using 10MB memory if I'm reading correctly (private bytes - Process Explorer)

tomos · « **Reply #26 on:** November 06, 2007, 06:20 AM »

Keep hourly backups for the last 24 hours, keep daily backups for the last month, and keep weekly backups for all previous months
-tranglos (November 05, 2007, 04:24 PM)

12 Ghosts:
the icons arent very inspiring & I dont know when it was last updated - I see vista mentioned ...
http://12ghosts.com/ghosts/backup.htm

HyperBackup creates one version per minute for one hour, one version every hour during one day's time, one version every day for the last month, and finally one version per month. This way it keeps a history of changes but requires only moderate disk space. A technology is used that does not require any processor resources while waiting for changes. Hence, most of the time 12-Backup just sits there, doing nothing. And even while backing up it does not block other applications because it runs in idle time, that is, when the processor has nothing else to do.

.
Also, have you looked at Filehamster -
various threads here if you search
watches folders & makes backup when you save - option to write comment -
you can e.g. easily delete all without comments or
limit number of backup saved (I havent used it that way so cant say..)
I love it but use it only for active (work) projects

iphigenie · « **Reply #27 on:** November 06, 2007, 11:39 AM »

I tried hyperbackup at the time and I liked it - it is a great default scheme and a shame more tools don't use that kind of approach (the only one i know is regrun for its registry backup). Most schedulers can't even allow you to manually set up an approach like this

tranglos · « **Reply #28 on:** November 07, 2007, 08:20 PM »

Thank, Tomos. I've tried DirSync, and it's nice enough, but doesn't do the true real-time mirroring that MirrorFolder does. Though the latter has its own quirks and I'm still trying it out. My external USB drive has just had a series of interesting write failures which may be attributable to MirrorFolder's device driver - Windows telling me delayed write to the external drive failed, after which it wouldn't even read directory contents right and had to be powered down. It's only a hunch, but my guess is that MirrorFolder's device driver hooks up each and every read/write operation, and it may have choked on something, since I was copying gigabytes of data to the USB drive and reading from it at the same time. It's the first time I've seen it happen, so I'm suspecting MF.

FileHamster and 12 Ghosts - I'm off to try them right now. Other than that, I've made up my mind to buy this little piece of hardware:
http://www.extremete...,1697,2091770,00.asp
With that, I'll be able to mirror all of my data and keep multiple versions of some of it, and while it's still vulnerable to theft, at least it won't fry if the main machine ever does. (Never happened to me, but on a friend's machine the power supply went all blue smoke and took everything with it, including two hard drives).

And just for completeness' sake - WebDrive is really nice in what it does, great to have an ftp account available as a drive letter at all times. The only problem with it so far - uploading one file in the background takes up exactly 50% of my Core2 Due 2,6 GHz; uploading two files concurrently takes 100%. This is excessive, and WebDrive doesn't seem to have a configurable priority setting. I wonder if there's a way to permanently mark a process low-priority in the Task Manager...

mwb1100 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 07, 2007, 09:57 PM »

And just for completeness' sake - WebDrive is really nice in what it does, great to have an ftp account available as a drive letter at all times. The only problem with it so far - uploading one file in the background takes up exactly 50% of my Core2 Due 2,6 GHz; uploading two files concurrently takes 100%. This is excessive, and WebDrive doesn't seem to have a configurable priority setting. I wonder if there's a way to permanently mark a process low-priority in the Task Manager...
-tranglos (November 07, 2007, 08:20 PM)

If you can get by with SFTP instead of FTP you might want to try SFTPDrive (http://www.sftpdrive.com). It uses essentially no CPU for me.

f0dder · « **Reply #30 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:41 AM »

MirrorFolder http://www.techsoftp...com/backup/index.php There are many real-time mirroring apps, but this one has won me over.
-tranglos (November 05, 2007, 04:24 PM)

Do you know of any other real-time sync/mirror apps that work in the same way as MF (ie., syncing only the changes, instead of doing a full filecopy on change)? MF looks like a very bloody nice program, and might just be the answer to my needs, but I wouldn't mind having something else to compare to

The service takes about 7 MB, so it's not tiny, but it seems to be highly reliable. I'm not sure if mirroring is the right thing for me, since if you make a bad change and save it, the mirror will go bad too (although MirrorFolder can also zip up previous versions of the mirrors it creates on schedule).
-tranglos (November 05, 2007, 04:24 PM)

Compare it to anything else, and you will call it tiny

. The mfsyncsv doesn't take any CPU time when it's not syncing anything (literally - CPU time and context switches don't go up), it uses only 1meg of private bytes, etc.

There's also a shell helper thing, but I'm not sure if it's necessary. Still, that one also sits idle, and takes ~1.3meg private bytes. Not bad!

Thanks a lot for mentioning MirrorFolder!

tranglos · « **Reply #31 on:** November 10, 2007, 07:20 AM »

MirrorFolder http://www.techsoftp...com/backup/index.php There are many real-time mirroring apps, but this one has won me over.
-tranglos (November 05, 2007, 04:24 PM)
Do you know of any other real-time sync/mirror apps that work in the same way as MF (ie., syncing only the changes, instead of doing a full filecopy on change)? MF looks like a very bloody nice program, and might just be the answer to my needs, but I wouldn't mind having something else to compare to
(snip)
Thanks a lot for mentioning MirrorFolder!
-f0dder (November 10, 2007, 05:41 AM)

Thanks a lot, f0dder!

Please see also my other note on MirrorFolder above, regarding possible interference with an external USB drive. It's a potential deal-breaker, because the system loses data when it happens. If a fixed drive was affected in this way, the results could be catastophic. I have no hard evidence MirrorFolder was responsible, except that it had never happened before and has not occurred since I removed MF. I'll have to re-install MF and see if it happens again.

I don't know of anything to compare it with. DirSync and similar programs usually just synchronize on schedule, and a few (SecondCopy) have an option to run a job whenever files change, but this still isn't true real-time mirroring. (SecondCopy is actually a little too eager, as it starts the backup job while the changing files are still open, e.g. being written to disk, and SC cannot handle that. You can configure a retry delay, but it would be better if SC just knew to wait a bit for files to become available without reporting an error.)

There is CascadePoint by JPSoftware (of 4Dos/4NT fame), which claims to do real-time mirroring (I've only found it now):
http://www.jpsoft.co.../cascadepointdes.htm

Also, ShadowProtect Desktop real-time imaging looks interesting - mentioned by Defenestration here:
https://www.donation...27.msg83068#msg83068

f0dder · « **Reply #32 on:** November 10, 2007, 08:59 AM »

tranglos: was your external USB enclosure by any chance connected via FireWire and not USB? Delay-write errors for firewire is a known issue (I've been-close-to losing my share of data because of it, thanks for GetDataBack!), because of some buggy firewire controller chips...

But I guess it could be caused by the MF filter driver, the problem with the firewire case iirc has to do with the controller saying "I can handle X size requests" but the drive only being able to handle some smaller amount. If the MF filter driver "blindly" copies i/o request packets to the destination, perhaps it sends some that are too big. Worth investigating.

I wouldn't trust an external drive (USB or FireWire) for "always-on", and even less as an auto-sync destination... I've seen several computers where external USB drives sometimes lose connection for less than half a second - enough time that the drive icon would blink out and back in existance in explorer, and a file copy would give one of those "retry?" dialogs. But nothing I've lost data because of...

I'll take a look at ShadowProtect and the jpsoft offering, but I must say that MF looks appealing, and has okay pricing.

and a few (SecondCopy) have an option to run a job whenever files change, but this still isn't true real-time mirroring. (SecondCopy is actually a little too eager, as it starts the backup job while the changing files are still open, e.g. being written to disk, and SC cannot handle that. You can configure a retry delay, but it would be better if SC just knew to wait a bit for files to become available without reporting an error.)
-tranglos (November 10, 2007, 07:20 AM)

Ugh, if it triggers as soon as the filesystem notification even is triggered... that would be awful. Especially because you don't get a list of changes, but have to scan the entire tree.

tranglos · « **Reply #33 on:** November 10, 2007, 04:22 PM »

tranglos: was your external USB enclosure by any chance connected via FireWire and not USB?
-f0dder (November 10, 2007, 08:59 AM)

Yes, definitely USB here.

But I guess it could be caused by the MF filter driver, the problem with the firewire case iirc has to do with the controller saying "I can handle X size requests" but the drive only being able to handle some smaller amount. If the MF filter driver "blindly" copies i/o request packets to the destination, perhaps it sends some that are too big. Worth investigating.

At the time I had Backup4All copying a large folder tree (some 60 GB) to the external drive, while I was navigating other trees on the drive and deleting (also large) folders. After a couple of minutes of this Windows started displaying baloon notifications in the tray saying that delayed write failed and "data was lost". Good thing I was copying files rather than moving them. At first I thought the disk failed, but it was OK after I restarted the USB enclosure. Then the same thing happened again. The folders being copied/deleted had nothing to do with MirrorFolder's source and target directories, but I do suppose it hooks all disk operations and only does its thing on the configured folders.

I wouldn't trust an external drive (USB or FireWire) for "always-on", and even less as an auto-sync destination... I've seen several computers where external USB drives sometimes lose connection for less than half a second - enough time that the drive icon would blink out and back in existance in explorer, and a file copy would give one of those "retry?" dialogs. But nothing I've lost data because of...

That's another possibility. The USB drive's LED did go out when the error happened. And the only way the USB drive works at all is if I connect it to a powered USB hub. When connected directly to a USB port on the motherboard, Windows does not detect it.

It's only a temporary solution, since I have a couple of leftover ATA drives from my previous system. I'll be replacing it with a two-disk NAS device in a few days.

Ugh, if it triggers as soon as the filesystem notification even is triggered... that would be awful. Especially because you don't get a list of changes, but have to scan the entire tree.

Exactly, so it's only good for relatively small folder trees. Windows folder notification API is broken that way.

marek

DBC · « **Reply #34 on:** November 11, 2007, 07:53 PM »

Marek -

Have you looked at Caddais BackupOnDemand? http://www.caddais.c...BackupOnDemand.shtml

It's a bit OT, but does concern the versioning issue. I've been using it for some years to back up important files as I write (particularly MS-Word ones). I bought it originally for this real-time backup feature, in which a driver monitors selected files for any changes while you are working on them and backs them up as a series of versions. This process is pretty unobtrusive and does not need, apparently, triggering by an explicit "save".

It also does periodic backups, scheduled ones and ftp. Of these latter features, I have only used the periodic backup, which is not very sophisticated.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little further program development going on AFAIK, but I have found the real-time mode very useful. I may be wrong about this, but I think Caddais BOD may operate somewhat differently from programs like FileHamster that seem to require a file to be actually saved before a version is made. OTOH, neither program makes it completely clear what they mean by "real time" backing up...

Derek

f0dder · « **Reply #35 on:** November 12, 2007, 06:27 AM »

DBC: thanks for mentioning that app, not many backup/sync apps seem to have realtime driver-based mode, which is what I'm interested in.

tranglos · « **Reply #36 on:** November 12, 2007, 03:10 PM »

there seems to be little further program development going on AFAIK, but I have found the real-time mode very useful. I may be wrong about this, but I think Caddais BOD may operate somewhat differently from programs like FileHamster that seem to require a file to be actually saved before a version is made. OTOH, neither program makes it completely clear what they mean by "real time" backing up...
-DBC (November 11, 2007, 07:53 PM)

Likewise Derek, thank you. Caddais seems to be closer to MirrorFolder than the more "traditional" backup programs, since it uses a driver, so it does true real-time mirroring. It seems the program was last updated in 2005, but then, in 2005 it may have been ahead of its time

Meanwhile, two more interesting backup solutions:

EMC Retrospect for Windows ($119)
http://www.emcinsign...cts/smb/retroforwin/

I'm approaching this one with mixed feelings. It seems to be one of the most powerful backup apps, and it's geared towards enterprise rather than home use. It's either extremely advanced, or it's a pedestrian backup program dressed up in plenty of five-dollar words, I cannot tell which. The authors are fond of picking out-of-the-way terms for otherwise simple things: a backup job is a "backup set"; when you mirror a drive to a folder on another drive, you're creating a "subvolume", etc.

On the one hand, it's hard to get a detailed feature list - you have to download a PDF datasheet, and even that is less informative than most shareware sites these days. On the other hand, the website does have a lot of support information, including a good number of articles in the knowledge base and a working users' forum. It seems though EMC Retrospect uses a proprietary backup format, not standard compression format like Zip. I've used a program like that before (FileBack PC), but never liked the idea that without this specific application I was locked out of my backups. Hefty pricetag, too!

IBM Tivoli Continuous Data Protection for Files ($42)
http://www-306.ibm.c...ous-data-protection/

Now this one is very interesting. IBM Tivoli is a line of storage products that come with plenty of trailing zeros on the pricetag; this one apparently goes for forty-something dollars. (And knowing IBM, it's probably written in Java, but I'm only guessing). If it shares more than the name with other Tivoli products, it should be highly reliable. It puts an icon in the tray, but otherwise it has no interface of its own, it's configured via a browser interface. One special feature is the ability to "fork" a backup: one copy goes to a local drive, and another copy to a network drive, a NAS device, etc. Looking at the screenshots, it may not offer all the full/differential/incremental/zipped/encrypted options we are used to, but just mirrors folders in the target location, with optional versioning. It does not need the network device to be always on - acording to the description, it will wait and run the backup once the device becomes available. That's a nice touch. If it is not too resource-hungry, it could be an excellent fire-and-forget solution indeed.

The question is, can you buy it. Click "Buy now" and you're taken to a list of countries. Poland is not listed (and neither is Germany, France and most of Europe anyway), so I don't know if they are limiting sales to customers from the liksted countries only. It seems though you can pick US, then click View Pricing, and finally you can add it to cart.

(On edit: Once you add it to cart, IBM wants you to create an account. That ends in a server error. Yesterday I couldn't even get to the ordering page, which was out of service for some reason. I decided not to istall the trial until I know if IBM will let me but the darn thing

It seems you can also buy it through digitalriver: http://tinyurl.com/2cq2js
But the price there is $35, so they may be selling an earlier version, there's no way to tell on that page.

.marek

tomos · « **Reply #37 on:** November 12, 2007, 03:37 PM »

IBM Tivoli Continuous Data Protection for Files ($42)[/b]
http://www-306.ibm.c...ous-data-protection/
.... it may not offer all the full/differential/incremental/zipped/encrypted options we are used to
-tranglos (November 12, 2007, 03:10 PM)

ahhh,
I posted/quoted about that in the other synching thread - there's always another similar themed thread isnt there

IBM's Tivoli Continuous Data Protection http://www-306.ibm.c...ous-data-protection/.
...
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)

tranglos · « **Reply #38 on:** November 12, 2007, 04:03 PM »

ahhh,
I posted/quoted about that in the other synching thread - there's always another similar themed thread isnt there
-tomos (November 12, 2007, 03:37 PM)

Yes, and I have great hopes for this one one! Including the hope that it works better than IBM's ordering page

J-Mac · « **Reply #39 on:** November 16, 2007, 03:58 PM »

I just got "bit" by the scheduling feature in SFFS. I thought it was scheduled for earlier this afternoon but a reboot of my PC naturally had shut down SFFS and it is not set to auto-start, so - nothing happened.

Every other program I have used that has an internal scheduler automatically places the auto-scheduler feature in the startup folder. Not SFFS. You must manually start the scheduler, and if you don't manually create a link in the startup folder it will not start upon reboot and the files will not be synchronized.

This is about as non-intuitive as I have seen in an application - especially one as important as a backup program. I do realize that this is a file-syncing program and not actually a backup program, but using synced files and folders as backups is exactly how they characterize SFFS.

This is one of the poorest UI's I have seen in a while. It does sync fast and true, but I now know that I have to be exceedingly careful about every setting and test them all in every conceivable situation, as the developers have not put the customers' ease of use anywhere near the top of the feature list!

I should have evaluated it for the full period allowed! Maybe this will teach me.

Thanks.

Jim

tranglos · « **Reply #40 on:** November 16, 2007, 05:10 PM »

I just got "bit" by the scheduling feature in SFFS. I thought it was scheduled for earlier this afternoon but a reboot of my PC naturally had shut down SFFS and it is not set to auto-start, so - nothing happened.

Every other program I have used that has an internal scheduler automatically places the auto-scheduler feature in the startup folder. Not SFFS. You must manually start the scheduler, and if you don't manually create a link in the startup folder it will not start upon reboot and the files will not be synchronized.
-J-Mac (November 16, 2007, 03:58 PM)

This is precisely what I was thinking when I evaluated SFFS. The interface, and the dangerous handling of scheduled jobs, including the fact that you must disable the scheduler before you can view your backup profiles.

I had a very hard time about a year ago choosing a text editor - I even tested products in $100+ price range, and none had the optimal mix of features and behaviors. I've registered three shareware editors, and they all annoy me in all sorts of ways

But now, choosing a backup application seems even harder. Don't kick yourself over not having evaluated SFFS longer; I guess when I see an application that looks good at first sight and gets great reviews, I tend to assume it will suit me in the long run, and what's more, I want it to be good, I want to like the program.

The first backup application I bought was FileBackPC, in 2002. It was exceedingly powerful for its time, but in the end the UI was too complex to be sure I always got the settings right, and I couldn't live with the proprietary compression format, which meant I was locked out of my backups until I downloaded and installed the program. Today the UI is a little better, but it seems to be falling behind in features (no FTP backup, for example), and they've kept the proprietary format.

For now I'm sticking with Backup4All. The only major feature I wish it had is registry backup - HandyBackup does that, but at about $100 it is the only feature Backup4All does not have, and it misses a few others (no differentials, for example). I have a pretty long list of bugs in Backup4All; fortunately most are usability issues and cosmetic bugs, nothing that affects the reliability of the scheduled backup jobs. One thing that keeps me hesitant about Backup4All in the long run is the response I received from the author when I asked for ability to automatically run missed backups - I was basically told never to switch off the computer, which means to me the author may have gotten the idea that the program needs no improvement.

I'm still trying to get at the IBM offering, but unable to order it - so far I've been redirected from one helpdesk to another (very corteously, though

, now waiting for response.

.marek

NeilS · « **Reply #41 on:** November 17, 2007, 08:08 AM »

I just got "bit" by the scheduling feature in SFFS. I thought it was scheduled for earlier this afternoon but a reboot of my PC naturally had shut down SFFS and it is not set to auto-start, so - nothing happened.
-J-Mac (November 16, 2007, 03:58 PM)

Do you have the Pro version, or just Standard? I was also a bit perturbed by the way the scheduling worked until I decided to try it with the ExtremeSync service installed (only available with Pro). With this, it behaves much more like you'd expect a backup program to work, i.e. you can fiddle with profiles and pretty much anything else without having to disable scheduling, not to mention allowing scheduling even if you are logged off.

It's a bit of a pity you have to buy Pro to get scheduling working this way though.

This is one of the poorest UI's I have seen in a while. It does sync fast and true, but I now know that I have to be exceedingly careful about every setting and test them all in every conceivable situation, as the developers have not put the customers' ease of use anywhere near the top of the feature list!
-J-Mac (November 16, 2007, 03:58 PM)

Before trying SFFS, I'd seen quite a few comments and reviews saying that the interface was great, so I was a bit confused when I found it to be messy and inconsistent - I began to wonder if I was missing "the point" somehow, but I'm now pretty convinced that the interface is a bit of a mess.

To be fair, it's probably hard to provide as many options as SFFS does without things getting a tad messy, but I do think it could be massively improved. For a start, since there's so many options, I'd like much more control over unifying options across multiple profiles, or some form of option inheritance (e.g. I've got 8 backup jobs, all using the same core settings, but scheduled at different frequencies).

That said, it's not like I'm changing options on a daily basis, and the speed and reliability of SFFS is as good as anything I've seen, so the dodgy interface isn't enough to make me want to change to anything else any time soon.

- Neil

tomos · « **Reply #42 on:** November 17, 2007, 08:25 AM »

also just had a look at SFFS version-history page & its getting an update every couple of days for the last couple of months
Hopefully the GUI might be improved for the next version at least .. maybe
I remember with the discount here, he was promising free updates (on request it sounded like) to people who bought with the discount - dunno is that discount still valid?

I am the software author and I want to add that a free version 4.0 update is no problem. When version 4 is out, there will be ways to get a free update, you just need to remember that you have been promised it!

(dunno can i link to thread here - being for members only)

urlwolf · « **Reply #43 on:** November 17, 2007, 08:31 AM »

by the way, SFFS has an option to recover all those individual zip files (even if you have incremental versions!) automatically. It mangles the names, but it understands them so no problem.

I'm using SFFS for incremental backups and it works better than any of the specialized solutions I have tried (backup4all, Genie, etc). Just tested it 4 days ago.

DBC · « **Reply #44 on:** November 19, 2007, 08:16 AM »

by the way, SFFS has an option to recover all those individual zip files (even if you have incremental versions!) automatically. It mangles the names, but it understands them so no problem.

I'm using SFFS for incremental backups and it works better than any of the specialized solutions I have tried (backup4all, Genie, etc). Just tested it 4 days ago.
-urlwolf (November 17, 2007, 08:31 AM)

That's good to know. Lack of automatic recovery of incremental b/u files was the problem you had with SyncBackSE, wasn't it?

DBC

nosh · « **Reply #45 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:37 PM »

I've been following the sync tool threads with some interest since I realised my usual app SecondCopy does not copy file comments which I've started using extensively with Xplorer2.

Tried about 10 tools briefly and just three of them handle comments correctly: SyncBackSE, SuperFlexible and DirSync.
Two tools that impressed me but didn't handle comments were MirrorFolder (powerful but usable because of a splendid interface) and SyncToy (excellent choice for basic sync needs).

I'm trying to decide between these three, unfortunately none of them is just right - they all have something I like and dislike.

DirSync: A lightweight compared to the other two but a competent app nonetheless.
What I like: Familiar, user-friendly interface, lacks a bazillion unnecessary (for my requirements) options and is yet reasonably powerful and takes care of the major aspects.
What I dislike: No inbuilt log viewer, notepad is the default viewer $:-\$
Very basic simulation preview unlike the other two.
Ugly tray icon (while it's syncing)

SuperFlexible: A mammoth in its category, a plethora of options which can kill the usability for the casual user.
What I like: It'll probably wake up at 6 AM sharp, do my laundry, prepare my breakfast & give my dog a bath if I configure it right.
What I dislike: I'd say something insightful at this point but my eyes are bleeding from wading through its interface! I'm surprised Oliver Stone didn't flash screenshots of this monstrosity during those crazy edits in Natural Born Killers.

SyncBackSE: A great balance between power and usability. Great deal of options that don't seem overwhelming.
What I like: Usable interface, I love the graphic representation of the differences.
What I dislike (nay, hate!): Does not have its own scheduler, relies on Windows Task Scheduler for running tasks at specific times - the only other way to automate is to run background tasks which is not true scheduling. I cannot pinpoint the reason but I've always hated Windows Task Scheduler, it's just been something vaguely unpleasant MS has thrust into my system that stays disabled, in the background and invisible. Maybe it's time to open my mind a little but I really feel an app should handle its scheduling without relying on 3rd party services that they have no control over.

P.O.A:
I have to admit, I don't think I could ever get comfortable with SuperFlexible's GUI, I can see myself getting over the learning curve and coming back to the app two months down the line and wondering once again about what x or y does. If I was in charge of the backups of an entire I.T department and needed to mess with a syncing app on a daily basis I _may_ have considered this app, even then it would be very easy to get one option wrong in its marshland of an interface.

So, I'm going to input all my backup profiles into Syncback and DirSync and do a speed comparison.

I'll also do a CPU benchmark during backup - if any of these chokes my system it's out!

Will offset that against the other major pros/cons and decide which one stays.

Edit:
DirSync it is! They both guzzle about 50% of the CPU (on normal priority), I'm pretty certain SyncBack uses a bit more. The time difference is huge though, I'm sure I haven't tweaked SyncBack right as it takes a lot longer. But when DirSync breezes through 7GB of data in that many seconds there's no point in looking elsewhere. Also, no making peace with Task Scheduler- big plus, people!

iphigenie · « **Reply #46 on:** November 19, 2007, 03:51 PM »

I wonder...
the reason I use a 2 panel file manager is usually to copy/sync things

I suspect if I had a good sync/compare tool I might just use this, and then I would possibly be able to use a 1 panel file manager, because i would use it to manage files, not backup/copy/sync things

Although most sync tools I know are aimed solely at scheduled regular work, and are a bit clunky for the ad-hoc quick check. Thats why in spite of having synchredible and no hands backup, I still use a 2 panel manager for most jobs...

Any suggestions? is there a sync tool that can do simple ad-hoc as well as compex, scheduled stuff? Or do I just need to use a compare-diff-type tool? Or do i just stick with what I have and stop this silly software bulimia?

f0dder · « **Reply #47 on:** November 19, 2007, 06:41 PM »

nosh: what do you mean, "doesn't handle comments"? What kind of comments? The stuff that's on file properties/summary pane, stored as alternate NTFS streams?

I know where you're coming from wrt. the windows task scheduler, I used to feel that way too... but I've come to the realization that it's idiotic that each app that wants to schedule actions have to use it's own scheduler - plain retarded. But since every app seems to do this, I don't have any experience with windows task scheduler, so I don't know if it works properly >_<

Btw., did you use MirrorFolder in "RAID mode" (ie., filter driver), or just used it for "regular" syncing?

nosh · « **Reply #48 on:** November 20, 2007, 01:16 AM »

That's right, the 'Comments' that appear on the summary tab. I tried two tests, 1) A file with no comment at the destination is now commented at the source. 2) A file at the destination has a redundant comment which I've deleted from the source file.
It didn't handle either. I'd set it up for regular synching, I don't go in for realtime coz I do identical mirroring and work with the source files all the time. I wouldn't want mistakes getting replicated immediately.

BTW, I've noticed some files (jpg, for instance) get changed physically (the header gets written into) if I add a comment, and I'm not just talking about adding a comment through X2, I could do it in Explorer and get the same result. Also if I add a comment to a copy of a file and then delete that comment completely the file still isn't identical to its original non-commented self. Also some (compound) files (wav, avi) won't let me add comments at all. I don't know how much the 'alternate' part in ADS applies in practice and working with comments is iffy at best.

There are pros and cons for the scheduling thing - I'd much rather prefer an app that gives me command line parameters to work with and use in a scheduler of my choice than one that forces me to use the Windows scheduler, even if it's just to get the command line params used.

f0dder · « **Reply #49 on:** November 20, 2007, 01:46 AM »

Okay, not handling "Comments" mean that MirrorFolder doesn't handle ADS on non-"raid" sync... I just verified that they are handled as soon as the filter driver is involved, though.

Across the whole range of software, ADS handling is sporadic at best. Can't blame software devs for it, as you have to resort to mostly undocumented stuff to get at them.

I assume that when changing "comments" in xplorer^2, exactly the same is done as in normal explorer.exe, since x^2 uses the shell namespace and COM stuff, so it's not x^2's fault that jpegs themselves are modified, blame Microsoft or whoever wrote that explorer shell thingy