After mirror synchronization,
I re-modified the filtering rules,
but the remote end did not detect any files outside the rules!
Shouldn't mirror synchronization be exactly the same?
Or is there something wrong with my Settings?
I used the local disk D mirror to synchronize to the SFTP remote end.
The file time and file size are compared.
filtering rules
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<Filter>
<Include>
<Item>*</Item>
</Include>
<Exclude>
<Item>\System Volume Information\</Item>
<Item>\$Recycle.Bin\</Item>
<Item>\RECYCLE?\</Item>
<Item>\Recovery\</Item>
<Item>*\thumbs.db</Item>
<Item>*\.vs\*</Item>
<Item>*\assets\*</Item>
</Exclude>
<SizeMin Unit="None">0</SizeMin>
<SizeMax Unit="None">0</SizeMax>
<TimeSpan Type="None">0</TimeSpan>
</Filter>
pls , help me !
Mirror synchronization problem
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 3 Dec 2024
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 3 Dec 2024
How to ensure that the remote end is consistent with the local end after filtering rules are modified?
-
- Posts: 2982
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
See e.g. viewtopic.php?t=11652#p45104
If, after a previous Mirror sync, you add items to your Exclude Filter, and you want such newly excluded items removed from your destination (right-side), you need to remove those yourself.
Conversely, if you delete items from your Exclude Filter, such items will be copied left=>right if not yet present in the destination, or updated left=>right if not present in the destination (right-side) in the same version as on the source (left-side).
If, after a previous Mirror sync, you add items to your Exclude Filter, and you want such newly excluded items removed from your destination (right-side), you need to remove those yourself.
Conversely, if you delete items from your Exclude Filter, such items will be copied left=>right if not yet present in the destination, or updated left=>right if not present in the destination (right-side) in the same version as on the source (left-side).
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 3 Dec 2024
Is a full mirror mode considered? Because many times the consideration of filtering is not complete, resulting in data redundancy.
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 3 Dec 2024
Do you plan to implement full mirror mode?It seems that many users are asking the same question.
-
- Posts: 2982
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
It is up to the FFS author, Zenju, if he intends to add that option.
But I don't consider it to be likely, as it means breaking the general concept of the Include and Exclude Filter rules applying to both the left- and right-side locations, for all sync variants.
But I don't consider it to be likely, as it means breaking the general concept of the Include and Exclude Filter rules applying to both the left- and right-side locations, for all sync variants.
- Posts: 4914
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
If you want a "full mirror", remove the exclusions
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 3 Dec 2024
Now it looks like the filter is acting on both sides.
Now let the filter apply only to the options on the left and find the excess files in the folder on the right and delete them.
Full mirror synchronization, achieved!
This does not break the original rule, but adds one more rule option.
The main thing is that the problem is not one person's need, it is clear from the links you provide that many people have this need, and there was this need much earlier.
Therefore, I think this is a BUG. It needs to be improved and fixed.
Now let the filter apply only to the options on the left and find the excess files in the folder on the right and delete them.
Full mirror synchronization, achieved!
This does not break the original rule, but adds one more rule option.
The main thing is that the problem is not one person's need, it is clear from the links you provide that many people have this need, and there was this need much earlier.
Therefore, I think this is a BUG. It needs to be improved and fixed.
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 3 Dec 2024
No one can make all filtering rules perfect at once.
Changes are always made in this filtering rule.
This creates too much redundant data and files.
I don't think the FFS writers should sit idly by.
Please make FFS software more perfect!
Changes are always made in this filtering rule.
This creates too much redundant data and files.
I don't think the FFS writers should sit idly by.
Please make FFS software more perfect!
-
- Posts: 2982
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
> Therefore, I think this is a BUG. It needs to be improved and fixed.
The present functionality is by designs, so it can never be a BUG.
And it should obviously not be "fixed", because many users, including myself, rely on the present functionality, whereby we use the Exclude Filter to prevent specific right-side items from
being deleted during a Mirror sync.
In order not to suddenly create unintended and unexpected data loss for most existing FFS users, your proposal could at best become a non-default, selectable option for the Mirror sync variant.
You keep calling your proposal a "full" mirror sync, apparently in contrast to the present functionality.
However, I consider the present Mirror sync functionality to already be a full mirror sync.
After a (present) mirror sync the right-side is identical to the left-side for all items within the scope of the sync.
And obviously, items you explicitly excluded from your sync via the Exclude Filter do not fall within the scope of the sync.
The present functionality is by designs, so it can never be a BUG.
And it should obviously not be "fixed", because many users, including myself, rely on the present functionality, whereby we use the Exclude Filter to prevent specific right-side items from
being deleted during a Mirror sync.
In order not to suddenly create unintended and unexpected data loss for most existing FFS users, your proposal could at best become a non-default, selectable option for the Mirror sync variant.
You keep calling your proposal a "full" mirror sync, apparently in contrast to the present functionality.
However, I consider the present Mirror sync functionality to already be a full mirror sync.
After a (present) mirror sync the right-side is identical to the left-side for all items within the scope of the sync.
And obviously, items you explicitly excluded from your sync via the Exclude Filter do not fall within the scope of the sync.
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 3 Dec 2024
Of course, the original functions cannot be changed in any way, because it will lead to incompatibility with habits! It is very dangerous!
Hope this non-default option can be added. Because I changed the filter conditions, there was too much redundant data.
There are too many files, and manual deletion is time-consuming, which annoys me. Of course, this is my personal problem.
This is a personal suggestion and an urgent personal need. I hope it can be adopted.
Thanks.Thanks.Thanks.
Hope this non-default option can be added. Because I changed the filter conditions, there was too much redundant data.
There are too many files, and manual deletion is time-consuming, which annoys me. Of course, this is my personal problem.
This is a personal suggestion and an urgent personal need. I hope it can be adopted.
Thanks.Thanks.Thanks.
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 27 Feb 2025
My search was unsuccessful, so I've opened another thread of this exact topic. Now I know there are fellow syncers, who are waiting for somebody to pull them out from this mirroring hell....
Jokes aside, it is certainly not trivial how mirroring behaves, only after you have bumped into this "why TF is this folder still here?" situation. It is a missing functionality.
I think this could be ultimately solved if in the Filters tab:
-We rename the second field to "Ignored" (because that's what it's doing, not excluding). Notice that you will not lose your settings and habits by renaming a field, so happiness persists for the ones using it.
-There would be a third field named like "Excluded", "Excluded from destination" or "Exclude (delete from right side)". This one would process the pair, prevent copying from left and delete it from the right if it's present. The filtered source would be truly mirrored this way.
This way everybody would get what they want.
Jokes aside, it is certainly not trivial how mirroring behaves, only after you have bumped into this "why TF is this folder still here?" situation. It is a missing functionality.
I think this could be ultimately solved if in the Filters tab:
-We rename the second field to "Ignored" (because that's what it's doing, not excluding). Notice that you will not lose your settings and habits by renaming a field, so happiness persists for the ones using it.
-There would be a third field named like "Excluded", "Excluded from destination" or "Exclude (delete from right side)". This one would process the pair, prevent copying from left and delete it from the right if it's present. The filtered source would be truly mirrored this way.
This way everybody would get what they want.
