Author Topic: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!) (Read 76,866 times)

tranglos · « **Reply #50 on:** October 02, 2008, 10:22 AM »

Quote from: urlwolf on October 02, 2008, 05:52 AM

Tranglos,
I think you are trying to use MF to do versioned backups (at least that's what fileHamster does). And my guess is that MF is designed for synch'ing not for versioned backups (although most of these programs can be used for both see e.g., the very name of synchBack).

Well, that's true. MF does versioned backups though, it just does them poorly IMO. It's excellent if you need the real-time copy, but for anything else there are better implementations.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #51 on:** October 02, 2008, 10:41 AM »

I'm still trying to figure out why you're backing up client machines to anything...Critical data should never be stored on a client machine. If user folders are stored on the server, then they're already there to be backed up when the time comes, and you can use the (built-in to windows) offline files to do a real time (bi directional) sync of the files back to the client machine if there are server availability issues to keep the files available to users.

Backing up a bunch of clients to a server, that is then backed up to something else can't possibly scale well at all (too many steps/failure points/administrative overhead).

f0dder · « **Reply #52 on:** October 02, 2008, 11:07 AM »

Stoic Joker, I agree fully with you - and hopefully that's going to be the direction the museum works now. I couldn't have talked them into it if it wasn't for the museum fusion/merger thingy, thuogh, hence why the original post (before that fusion was planned).

Cleaner007 · « **Reply #53 on:** October 02, 2008, 05:59 PM »

For <MOD: removed link> i use <MOD: removed product> - simple and effective. Very recommend

edit by jgpaiva: removed link for repeated SPAM

vsg-good · « **Reply #54 on:** October 03, 2008, 10:52 AM »

Quote from: Cleaner007 on October 02, 2008, 05:59 PM

For <removed> i use <removed> - simple and effective. Very recommend

Thanks

. Looking a good file sync app for a long time.

tomos · « **Reply #55 on:** October 03, 2008, 02:35 PM »

Quote from: Cleaner007 on October 02, 2008, 05:59 PM

For file synchronization [link removed] i use <removed> - simple and effective. Very recommend

Cleaner007 are you affiliated with Moleskin Software?
- all your four posts are promoting products from that company

It's not a problem if you are - just that you're supposed to say it.
This place is full of people who write software & recommend it - you'd actually come across a lot better if you were affiliated (and stated that) - now your posts just look like spam and have a high chance of being removed

cmpm · « **Reply #56 on:** October 03, 2008, 02:52 PM »

hmmm yeah...

here's another manual syncer

http://www.spacejock.com/ySync.html

there is a lot of other programs there at spacejock also

MrCrispy · « **Reply #57 on:** October 07, 2008, 01:24 AM »

I saw a post on a blog for a new open source synchronization program - http://synkron.sourceforge.net/
May be worth checking out.

tranglos · « **Reply #58 on:** October 07, 2008, 01:28 AM »

Quote from: MrCrispy on October 07, 2008, 01:24 AM

I saw a post on a blog for a new open source synchronization program - http://synkron.sourceforge.net/
May be worth checking out.

Here's a writeup at DownloadSquad:
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/10/06/open-source-synkron-does-killer-cross-platform-synchronization/

...and screenshots:
http://synkron.sourceforge.net/screenshots.shtml

J-Mac · « **Reply #59 on:** October 08, 2008, 04:17 AM »

Quote from: tomos on October 03, 2008, 02:35 PM

Quote from: Cleaner007 on October 02, 2008, 05:59 PM
For file synchronization [link removed] i use <removed> - simple and effective. Very recommend

Cleaner007 are you affiliated with Moleskin Software?
- all your four posts are promoting products from that company

It's not a problem if you are - just that you're supposed to say it.
This place is full of people who write software & recommend it - you'd actually come across a lot better if you were affiliated (and stated that) - now your posts just look like spam and have a high chance of being removed

Yes - check Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=cleaner007&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS261US261

Mod should can him/her.

Jim

jgpaiva · « **Reply #60 on:** October 08, 2008, 09:51 AM »

J-mac thanks for the google search, I hadn't searched for the username.
In a previous thread I had already made the "are you affiliated with the company" question, and got no answer.
Given the fact that the user repeated the action without justifying himself, and is a known spammer, I'll delete the posts (remove link and product name) and ban the user.

[edit]ok, apparently I was late, and should have not removed the stuff from the previous posts... Very sory about that, I'll pay more attention next time. I'll link back from the other threads to this one. [/edit]

Author Topic: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!) (Read 76,866 times)

tranglos

Re: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)

Stoic Joker

Re: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)

f0dder

Re: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)

Cleaner007

Re: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)

vsg-good

Re: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)

tomos

Re: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)

cmpm

Re: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)

MrCrispy

Re: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)

tranglos

Re: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)

J-Mac

Re: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)

jgpaiva

Re: File synchronization: moving away from incremental backup (HELP!)