TL;DR. On a large one-way sync, the Synchronizing... screen is reporting impossible numbers. It's showing smaller graphs and numbers than it did a few hours after the sync started.
I'm doing a one-way Sync of 2,476,358 files and 551 GB of data. When I started it yesterday, the Synchronization screen estimated about 14 hours to sync. When I woke up this morning, it was down to 6 or 7 hrs. After breakfast, it was showing over 50% completed and 5:30 to go.
Around that time I installed the Amphetamine app to keep the target computer from going to sleep, and then Bartender 4, so I could see Amphetamine's icon to activate it. These are both widely used, well respected apps, so I have no reason to believe they have anything to do with the problem. I'm mentioning them here just in case.
I activated Amphetamine to keep the computer awake. Then I checked the Sync, and it was down to about 5 hrs left. Then I took my morning shower.
Afterwards, I checked the Synchronizing... screen. Cmd-Tab shows the FreeFileSync icon and 66%. But the Synchronizing... window itself now says there are as many as 13 days to completion (although this fluctuates wildly between ~7 and ~13 days). Also, while it shows 367 GB have already been processed and only 186 GB remain, it's saying only ~63 K of files have been processed and ~450K files remain, even though earlier these proportions were reversed. Finally, the graphs, which were showing over 50% of the polygons in green or blue before, are now showing hardly any colored area in the polygons.
Is this a bug?
System Description:
MacOS Monterey, Version 12.2
MacBook Pro (14-inch 2021)
Chip: Apple M1 Max
Memory: 32 GB
Storage: 2 TB, 1.22 Available
Likely Bug: Synchronizing... Screen Errors
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 5 Feb 2022
-
- Posts: 4056
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
No, the progress graphs are dynamic and changed size. You hit a large chunk of small files, which take a lot longer than a few files of the same total size. It doesn't surprise me that 63K files that total 367GB would go significantly faster than 450K files totaling 186GB. I was going to suggest in your other thread to reduce the data you are syncing. You probably don't need the whole user folder, and it's unlikely that most of it will be useful anyway. I would have only synced the folders with actual user data in it, documents, videos, pictures, etc.
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 5 Feb 2022
I used filters to eliminate obvious folders that I don't need. (e.g., Downloads & Library). Or, at least I thought this would be the best method because I wouldn't have to restart the sync repeatedly with individual folders.
Thanks for your explanation. It makes sense, even if it's not what I wanted to hear. But I do have one question. Before I started the Sync, I first ran a Compare. Can the Compare give an estimate of how long a Sync will take or provide guidance on how best to break a Sync into smaller pieces?
Put differently, Compare is collecting data on the number of files that need to be synchronized and, I presume, their sizes. Can't this information be used for a better and more stable time estimate?
Thanks for your explanation. It makes sense, even if it's not what I wanted to hear. But I do have one question. Before I started the Sync, I first ran a Compare. Can the Compare give an estimate of how long a Sync will take or provide guidance on how best to break a Sync into smaller pieces?
Put differently, Compare is collecting data on the number of files that need to be synchronized and, I presume, their sizes. Can't this information be used for a better and more stable time estimate?
-
- Posts: 4056
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
No, FFS has absolutely no way to tell what you are using for syncing. Your set of files will transfer significantly faster on my 10gb network than it will on whatever you are transferring them with. It's down to personal knowledge on how to analyze the info FFS gives you to choose what to do.
