ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Other Software > Announce Your Software/Service/Product


<< < (4/18) > >>

I did some more tests.

Bvckp is usually faster than SyncBack here, but not that much, depending on the types of files copied.
Sometimes it can even be slower. But I haven't tested anything over a network.

apankrat : it seems that maybe bvckup doesn't detect file renaming / moved files so that it can perform the same operations on the destination, instead of deleting / copying the files anew. SyncToy does that and this means dramatic speed improvement.

george7987 makes some interesting comparisons there

Created a backup job which basically syncs a bunch of big files. I made SyncBack profile so that it's the fastest possible

[EDIT : Need to redo the test to make sure numbers are correct... Sorry  :-[]

As far as performance goes for these operations, there's room for improvement when
- "raw" copying from source to destination
- file and folder renaming in the source

Of course :

- SyncBack or SynToy don't do delta, Bvckup does...
- SyncToy doesn't use VSS, Bvckup does.

[EDIT : note that I'm trying to be constructive here... Bvckup is still beta and free at the moment.  :)]

Edit : Sync Back seems to take care of renaming (both files and folders), File move and , after all... Only for some reasons, it takes longer after the rename for it to take it into account. No idea why. Back in a few minutes... Nope it doesn't  :)

Posted the results of my tests there


@sajman99 - thanks, great to hear you like it :)
@cranioscopical - thanks

@Armando -

One thing to keep in mind with regards to the copying speed is the following. With delta copying there's always a small chance that a change will be missed because a block of data happens to have the exact same checksum (or hash) after it is modified. Bvckup is using MD5 over moderately sized blocks (32 KB), so technically the probability of such event are really really small. However, just to err on the side of caution, Bvckup will copy every file in its entirety every N backups (8 by default). This is configurable in backup Properties, Backup What section, behind the Details button.

Glad you like the website. My hobby du jour - :)

Regarding Hamachi - yeah, that was my baby too. It was wildly popular in gamers' circles, but I doubt it still is as LogMeIn repositioned it as an IT/sysadmin tool.
-apankrat (October 15, 2010, 12:56 AM)
--- End quote ---

Still very much in use in the world of gaming, especially for private alpha testing of new games and/or private servers.

I can tell you that is is very much used for use on "Conquer Online 2.0 Private {Pirate} Servers"

Im a user of Hamachi and am very very impressed with it (In fact, it is currently on my taskbar, fully loaded and connected to 6 networks (4 of my own).

I also use this as a system admin tool and have introduced it to a collegue of mine for use within the office as a Lan Chat and File sharing utility with the obvious option to ping computers to check quickly if they are switched on or not.

I may write up a review of this actually, seeing as I am a regular user and rather like it, and much prefare it to the other options available.

Love Hamachi, and will certainly be trying this one out over the weekend.

@Deozaan - the scrolling bug - I can reproduce it, but it appears to be a quirk of a standard RichEdit control. Should be easy to fix, thanks for the report. Hamachi + Diabolo --- lol, yeah, that was one hell of a combo :)


@MerleOne - with regards to backing up into an archive file - I am very reluctant to add this. Another person asked for a similar feature over an email, let me just copy-paste my reply here:

It is indeed a nice feature, and you are not the first one to ask for it. I can see how it can be useful and how it is related to what the program does at the moment. However it complicates the program. Not in terms of complexity of the code, or even the complexity of the UI. It's all about making the software that does just one thing and does it really well. Right now it is very easy to explain what the program does - it makes a copy of a folder. Once advanced options are added, like the one you are suggested, the program starts to turn into a Swiss Army Knife. Its scope blurs, it becomes harder to understand what it is for exactly. It sure becomes more featureful and could potentially accommodate the needs of a wider variety of users, but at the same time it will become less and less appealing to those who just need to just copy a folder. In the end by adding a feature the program may gain less users than it would loose - loosing those who view major unwanted features as a bloat or unneeded complexity.
One option would be to make another, separate program that would backup into the compressed archived. And do only that.
--- End quote ---

With regards to the "can't set ownership on dest files" issue - I saw this before, and it was triggered by a file being initially copied from another machine or created by another user. So bvckup ended up making a copy of the file not owned by the user whose account it was running under. The first copy would succeed, and the second copy will fail, because the destination machine will (quite reasonably) refuse bvckup full access to the file owner by another user.

I was wrecking my head on how to properly handle this setup, and I think the most sensible thing to do is to detect files that are NOT owned by current user and make Bvckup ask the user if it should copy the ownership information...


On editing filters -
On backslash - it's not needed


@jaden - thanks for the kind words, appreciate them.

"Across remote machines" - do you mean that you would have a UI here, but the actual backup process will run over there? If so, then this is very closely related to running Bvckup as a service. Latter requires splitting Bvckup into the UI process and the engine process (service), and making them talk to each other. Once the split is done (the hardest part), they can technically talk to each other over a TCP connection, so it should be simple to run the UI on a separate box.

However, see the quote in my reply to MerleOne above. There is a principal matter of needlessly complicating the program to make it do something that is useful to a fraction of its user base.


With regards to the portable version - yep, as Perry said, it can run without being installed. It can even update itself when run that way. And here is the .zip and here is the thread on the subject :)


@Nod5 - I have no idea :) B-vee-kup sounds about right.


@Armando - rename/move detection is on my ToDo list, it has been suggested before and I think it's a great feature to have. I will see what I can do... perhaps over the weekend ;)

With regards to further improving speed - there is a number of things that bvckup doesn't currently do, and that I am going to tackle in a bit. Specifically, the bypass of OS cache, using one IO thread per device, etc. That's why it is still in beta.


Stephen66515 - Same here, using it mostly for in-LAN chat and RD'ing to my wifey's laptop :) The last thing I wrote for Hamachi was the engine (service) part of the 2.0 client, it was around 2 years ago. The guys who took over are really good, one of the best devs I ever worked with. They took out my easter egg from the About dialog box though... :-|

Review is online btw.
-- --

Thanks for starting up something great!


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version