I would like some advice on whether or not I am using the software properly. I
have a laptop with a small hard drive that I use to download my Steam games
wherever I can get online with highspeed. I have an external 2TB drive to hold
my games. I download my newest additions with the laptop and sync to the
larger external drive, usually wiping the laptop files afterwards. I compare
laptop (left ) to external drive ( right side ) with file time and size and
sync by update. I don't have the room to keep all my games on the laptop. I
find that since my external drive Steam folder keeps growing, my compare
time keeps growing since it always takes longer to scan my destination
drive. Is there a way to keep a database of the destination drive so I don't
have to keep fully re-scanning it ? Is the Automatic method the answer (
without needing to keep the files on my laptop drive ) ?? I am just trying
to be more efficient. Thanks for any tips ! Silver
Proper method help
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 16 May 2012
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7211
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
The comparison step is the same for all variants (mirror, automatic, update).
Only the file filter may have an impact on speed if you exclude large
directories you don't need to sync. So generally your setup seems okay. Since
"update" is like a mirror but without the cleanup of deleted files, you may
check if a number of directories have accummulated on the target which you
don't need anymore.
Only the file filter may have an impact on speed if you exclude large
directories you don't need to sync. So generally your setup seems okay. Since
"update" is like a mirror but without the cleanup of deleted files, you may
check if a number of directories have accummulated on the target which you
don't need anymore.
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 16 May 2012
Thanks for replying Zenju ! Its good to know I am on the right track. When
I read that the automatic method used a database to smartly sync , I thought I
could save that database result from the destination drive so I can re-load
the database and save on comparison time. My comparison time has increased
from about 5 minutes to more than half an hour as my Steam game collection
increases. The sync is usually only a couple minutes more, since I'm usually
adding a few more GB.
I wonder if it's worth a mention as a feature request...
I read that the automatic method used a database to smartly sync , I thought I
could save that database result from the destination drive so I can re-load
the database and save on comparison time. My comparison time has increased
from about 5 minutes to more than half an hour as my Steam game collection
increases. The sync is usually only a couple minutes more, since I'm usually
adding a few more GB.
I wonder if it's worth a mention as a feature request...
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7211
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
The database can't answer the question how the directory looks at this very
moment. A speedup for comparison can only be achieved by directory exclusion.
moment. A speedup for comparison can only be achieved by directory exclusion.
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 3 Oct 2018
Has being able to save a compare been implemented yet?
I'm having to transfer millions of files through a remote desktop connection (the only way onto a different domain) which takes hours to scan and if the session falls over I have to re-run the compare and loose hours.
I'm having to transfer millions of files through a remote desktop connection (the only way onto a different domain) which takes hours to scan and if the session falls over I have to re-run the compare and loose hours.
-
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
If that is your concern, why not split it up in smaller, better sizeable parts?
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 3 Oct 2018
I have been doing that. Were I to try and do it in one transfer it would be days of scanning and weeks of transfer time.
Splitting it up in size further to what I have now would mean not transferring over the weekend and potentially nights. Also it would mean more management overhead of the transfer, time which would be better spent on other tasks.
Seeing a number of people requesting this feature, and going back many years, I had hoped it was possible but based on your answer I'm guessing it hasn't been added?
Splitting it up in size further to what I have now would mean not transferring over the weekend and potentially nights. Also it would mean more management overhead of the transfer, time which would be better spent on other tasks.
Seeing a number of people requesting this feature, and going back many years, I had hoped it was possible but based on your answer I'm guessing it hasn't been added?
-
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
I am not the author, just (meanwhile) a bit experienced user.… but based on your answer I'm guessing it hasn't been added?lwoodhouse, 04 Oct 2018, 01:00
But I don't remember having seen it in any of the change logs.
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 24 Sep 2018
silver011 wrote:
" I compare laptop (left ) to external drive ( right side ) with file time and size and
sync by update .... my compare time keeps growing since it always takes longer to scan my destination drive."
Zenju wrote:
"The comparison step is the same for all variants (mirror, automatic, update)."
I'm surprised that a comparison step would take this long.
On the other hand, since silver001 wipes the files off his laptop after each transfer, this may be the reason he/she needs to do a comparison. In other words, every transfer is like a first time transfer.
I have a related question.
Assume a mirror transfers are done.
My assumption was that after the first mirror transfer from a Source Disk to a Target Disk, all subsequent mirror transfers were fast because the comparison is done on a file-by-file basis and time increased only when a file needed to be transferred, and by the time needed for the transfer.
That's the way Seagate's old *backup* could be set up (they no longer offer that software).
Seagate's older *backup* software took about 2-3 hours to transfer about 175 GB of files to the Target Disk.
After, if files were changed and/or if folders were added or deleted after that first transfer, subsequent backups took about 15 minutes (during which time every folder was checked).
It appears that FFS doesn't work that way.
That said, I was under the impression that no comparison is necessary for a file synch.
What if the comparison step is skipped .... but a mirror synch is done by choosing the root folder (within which every other folder and file is contained) on both the Source Disk and the Target Disk?
Would that save time and would the file transfer be done quickly (again, I am assuming that a mirror synch is done).
" I compare laptop (left ) to external drive ( right side ) with file time and size and
sync by update .... my compare time keeps growing since it always takes longer to scan my destination drive."
Zenju wrote:
"The comparison step is the same for all variants (mirror, automatic, update)."
I'm surprised that a comparison step would take this long.
On the other hand, since silver001 wipes the files off his laptop after each transfer, this may be the reason he/she needs to do a comparison. In other words, every transfer is like a first time transfer.
I have a related question.
Assume a mirror transfers are done.
My assumption was that after the first mirror transfer from a Source Disk to a Target Disk, all subsequent mirror transfers were fast because the comparison is done on a file-by-file basis and time increased only when a file needed to be transferred, and by the time needed for the transfer.
That's the way Seagate's old *backup* could be set up (they no longer offer that software).
Seagate's older *backup* software took about 2-3 hours to transfer about 175 GB of files to the Target Disk.
After, if files were changed and/or if folders were added or deleted after that first transfer, subsequent backups took about 15 minutes (during which time every folder was checked).
It appears that FFS doesn't work that way.
That said, I was under the impression that no comparison is necessary for a file synch.
What if the comparison step is skipped .... but a mirror synch is done by choosing the root folder (within which every other folder and file is contained) on both the Source Disk and the Target Disk?
Would that save time and would the file transfer be done quickly (again, I am assuming that a mirror synch is done).
