Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Backup/Syncing performance -- a few software compared
Armando:
Thanks. I also did some more tests comparing SFFS and Bvckup for full backups. I could post the numbers when I have the time, but Bvckup is generally noticeably faster, unless there's some files/folder renaming/moving involved in the source. Which is a feature apankrat (bvckup's developper) is going to offer in a future release.
I haven't compared it to Oops! Yet, simply because it was already quite slow for the first sync when some tests were performed in another thread here. I might in the future.
As for cleaning the cache... Of course, you mean like using CacheSet ? To be honest : no. My logic here was simply that since the tests were performed repeatedly and often enough, each backup soft could benefit from the cached files. As far as the full backups are concerned : for this I could've tried to clean the cache. Maybe would it have an effect... But I'm not sure since tests were performed after a long time using the computer. In any case, Bvckup should've been slower since it was always doing its backup first, then syncback. But Bvckup was always faster.
What to you think ? I should redo all test and clean the cache between each tests using cacheset ? You think it'd make a significant difference ?
That wouldn't be this week though as it takes time... :)
ppass:
- SyncBack is good, but lacks 2 very important features IMO : awareness of file/folder renaming/moving and delta copying.
-Armando (October 15, 2010, 06:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not true. These options are available, but hard to find!
Backup/Syncing performance -- a few software compared
Backup/Syncing performance -- a few software compared
Armando:
Yup. Do they work for you ?
1- Have you read what's in the parentheses (and in the help file)?
2- I've been using SyncBack for a loooooooong time. I know these (renaming) features, and :
a- renaming detection is only available in 2 ways sync, not in one way sync, which is what interrests me. So it's useless here. They aren't available in mirror mode.
b- as an aside : never found it made a difference in terms of spead (so what good are they...) when I did the 2 ways sync, a while ago.
3- Fast backup does accelerate backup (used it exclusively) but it's still slower than, let's say... Bvckup. AND it's not even available in 2 way sync (which is normal, BTW). Kind of a catch 22 if you ask me. It's one (renaming detection) or the other (fast backup)... And if renaming detection is supposed to work during Fast backup, then there's a bug and it should be fixed as it never worked for me.
4- Renaming detection never worked properly for me... If you're satisfied then great.
I still use SyncBack, but not to do mirror syncing.
ppass:
If the option is not there in SyncBackSE, then have you asked for it in their forums? I don't see no technical reason why file rename detection is present for syncs and not backups. If you can make your case in the forums, they'll include it.
I am satisfied with file rename detection in SyncBackSE.
Armando:
Thanks for your note.
In any case, I should've not dismiss SyncBack'S renaming capabilities completely, as there are some. It's just that performance wise it doesn't make a big difference, if any.
The only advantage, it seems to me, is if you're working over a network so that means less data transfer.
That said, I've always liked syncback. And even the few drawbacks didn't prevent me from using it.
I have posted a few things in their forums a while ago. I also followed the threads on delta technology. Have you ?
http://2brightsparks.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4473&start=30
They don't seem interested (not giving customers any answers whatsoever), at all.
Or threads about file/folder moving/renaming
http://2brightsparks.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=7400&highlight=renaming
http://2brightsparks.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=6830&highlight=renaming
Some have asked to offer the option in mirror mode... But...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version