A question and a problem

Discuss new features and functions
Posts: 3
Joined: 6 May 2007

winwolf3d

I like FreeFileSync and appreciate the work that has gone into it.

#1: A question:
Is there any way for multiple sync setups to be stored in one ffs_batch file? ie: two <MainConfig> groups? I dug around but didn't find anything. If there is not yet a way, I think it would be good to have.

#2: A problem:
I have a parent folder with a bunch of subfolders and files. However, there are only four subfolders I want to check and I'd like to have this as one ffs_gui file. So I added these subfolders to the include filter like:

\SubFolder1\*
\SubFolder2\*
\SubFolder3\*
\SubFolder4\*

However, it still seems to be scanning all of the folders anyway. I'm comparing against a folder across a VPN which is very slow, so it becomes pretty obvious that it's not restricting the scan to only the included subfolders (despite FreeFileSync saying 0 files have been scanned in 5 minutes...). I saw a similar thread about having similar speed issues when exclude filters were used. This is just the inverse.

If this issue can be resolved, it kind of negates my need for the first part, but maybe others would find it useful.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 7210
Joined: 9 Dec 2007

Zenju

> #1
No, currently that's not possible. However I am thinking about having individual configuration (filter, sync-settings) per folder pair. This would be essentially equivalent to your request. But don't ask me when this will come.

> #2
The behaviour you describe is on purpose: Imagine you had an include filter "*.doc". Now the traversing algorithm encounters directory "C:\test". It doesn't match the include filter and is not traversed. But there is a file "C:\test\my.doc" which DOES match the include filter... see the problem?
Thus the decision was to traverse into all directories even though the include filter doesn't match. This might be slow, like in your case, but at least it's correct.

In order to improve performance you can setup exclude filters: If a folder is excluded it is NOT traversed (in contrast to include filter).

-Zenju
Posts: 3
Joined: 6 May 2007

winwolf3d

> #1
No, currently that's not possible. However I am thinking about having individual configuration (filter, sync-settings) per folder pair. This would be essentially equivalent to your request. But don't ask me when this will come.

> #2
The behaviour you describe is on purpose: Imagine you had an include filter "*.doc". Now the traversing algorithm encounters directory "C:\test". It doesn't match the include filter and is not traversed. But there is a file "C:\test\my.doc" which DOES match the include filter... see the problem?
Thus the decision was to traverse into all directories even though the include filter doesn't match. This might be slow, like in your case, but at least it's correct.

In order to improve performance you can setup exclude filters: If a folder is excluded it is NOT traversed (in contrast to include filter).

-ZenjuZenju
> #2
I understand what you mean, though when there are no filters like "*.doc" in the list (all asterisks are at the end of each filter), nothing inside other folders could ever match and they could be skipped. However, I concur and am using the exclude filters as suggested and things are good.

One last completely separate thought: due to my slow VPN connection, file icons on the left side load slowly (one every 3-4 seconds). Is there an option to stop file icons from loading?

Thank you for your response and thanks once again for this application.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 7210
Joined: 9 Dec 2007

Zenju

> when there are no filters like "*.doc"
String parsing can yield all kinds of suprises, so I'm reluctant to add too much of it. (there is some already, e.g. \text\ is read as text for folders, \text\* as text\* for files and folders, text for folders...etc.)

> Is there an option to stop file icons from loading?
Yes, just right click on a column label to open a context menu.

-Zenju
Posts: 3
Joined: 6 May 2007

winwolf3d

> when there are no filters like "*.doc"
String parsing can yield all kinds of suprises, so I'm reluctant to add too much of it. (there is some already, e.g. \text\ is read as text for folders, \text\* as text\* for files and folders, text for folders...etc.)

> Is there an option to stop file icons from loading?
Yes, just right click on a column label to open a context menu.

-ZenjuZenju
I understand your reluctance. That's why I'm going with "exclude what you don't want" as mentioned.

Thanks for pointing out that context menu! I hadn't noticed it before. Sorry to have started this thread for nothing in the end.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 7210
Joined: 9 Dec 2007

Zenju

I like FreeFileSync and appreciate the work that has gone into it.

#1: A question:
Is there any way for multiple sync setups to be stored in one ffs_batch file? ie: two <MainConfig> groups? I dug around but didn't find anything. If there is not yet a way, I think it would be good to have.

#2: A problem:
I have a parent folder with a bunch of subfolders and files. However, there are only four subfolders I want to check and I'd like to have this as one ffs_gui file. So I added these subfolders to the include filter like:

\SubFolder1\*
\SubFolder2\*
\SubFolder3\*
\SubFolder4\*

However, it still seems to be scanning all of the folders anyway. I'm comparing against a folder across a VPN which is very slow, so it becomes pretty obvious that it's not restricting the scan to only the included subfolders (despite FreeFileSync saying 0 files have been scanned in 5 minutes...). I saw a similar thread about having similar speed issues when exclude filters were used. This is just the inverse.

If this issue can be resolved, it kind of negates my need for the first part, but maybe others would find it useful.winwolf3d
> Sorry to have started this thread for nothing in the end
Actually it made me rethink this specific problem with inclusion filtering: If a folder doesn't match the filter then at least it has to match the BEGINNING of the filter in order for further traversing to make any sense. I think this logic is pretty safe and will solve this issue quite generically. I'll include it for v2.3, so no additional exclude filter will be necessary to speed up performance!

Regards, Zenju