Feature request: Delta copying

For technical support visit http://support.2brightsparks.com/

Feature request: Delta copying

Postby Elina » Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:23 am

One major improvement would be including the "delta copying" technology to the product, where only changed parts of large files are copied. Without it SyncBack is not a good solution for backing up large files like outlook.pst, databases etc over FTP/Internet.

Any plans for this?
Elina
Enthusiastic
Enthusiastic
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:33 pm

Postby mickyj » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:00 am

Hi, maybe in future, but we've got many other features to add before then.
User avatar
mickyj
2BrightSparks Staff
2BrightSparks Staff
 
Posts: 7965
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:51 pm
Location: In front of computer

Postby mcvpjd3 » Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:01 am

I have to admit, we are looking at buying Syncback to deploy to about 3000 PC's, but the only thing holding us back is we really want something that does delta changes as well....
mcvpjd3
Enthusiastic
Enthusiastic
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:59 pm

Postby bldrdash » Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:59 pm

I 2nd this request. Client/Server delta copy over an encrypted (ssh) connection. Right now, we rely on a cygwin Rsync for the heavy lifting. It would be nice to replace that with SB.

Additional suggestion is to move (instead of link or copy like it does now) profiles when associated with a Group.
bldrdash
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:54 pm

Postby xenon2050 » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:02 pm

I'll 3rd the request.
We use SB at work to copy large (think 60+GB) image files over a VPN. The connection is fast, but being able to copy where the files are "split" would be great because we wouldn't have to worry about those larger files as much.
xenon2050
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:44 pm

Postby tbsky » Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:16 am

hi:
i am monitoring syncbackse over 1 year and waiting for this function.
i wonder if there are other good products can do this?
i want to deploy backup software for our company this year. we have hundreds of compurters. i have heard that altiris is good, but is is bought by symantec now.
thanks for help!!
tbsky
Enthusiastic
Enthusiastic
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:00 am

Postby Vorenus » Mon May 19, 2008 10:36 am

Seriously, this is a must-have feature and would make SyncBack the BEST backup tool available in Windows and make it a feature complete product.

As good as SyncBack is in the other areas, without delta copying, SyncBack is lacking even to rsync...

Speaking to rsync, I advice you use its efficient algorithm. It is an open-source tool so you can see and even reuse the source code if required.

I really would like to see this feature in the product : it is what currently prevents me from buying it for my whole network !

Thanks for reconsidering the priority of this feature.
Vorenus
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:33 am

Postby ianq » Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:22 am

I use rsync too - and there is no better tool to backup files across a slow connection.

But rsync using cygwin has one big drawback - if you use it over a faster connection ie like a internal network - the cygwin file I/O is SLLOOOWWW.. Yes, is is faster than what most of us have over the internet (so is thus not an issue), but on any of my windows machines it is slower than even a 100mbit connection, let alone a gigabit one.
As a rough idea, on a windows machine that the hard disk will do 76Mbytes/sec write, via the cyqwin emulation we get about 9mbytes/sec...

So while I agree that it would be a GREAT feature for PRO, it's not just a case of using the rsync library - it would have to be re written to get proper performance under windows... (something I've been thinking of doing for years, but still haven't got around to..)

Ian
ianq
Advanced
Advanced
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:13 am

Postby deltaend » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:09 pm

You can already use Rsync, Cwrsync, Unison, etc with SyncBackSE (what DeltaCopy uses). SyncBack can kick off the command line after it is finished or before it runs.

Also... for those of you who use DeltaCopy to transfer files over the web vs a regular Rsync server... do you realize how insecure a DeltaCopy server is? It is almost as bad as having full read/write annon FTP servers running with all your private data on them. DeltaCopy is designed to be an internal network resource for small companies who don't want to mess with full blown Rsync.

Ian, go go get that performance up! Do it! :)
deltaend
Enthusiastic
Enthusiastic
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:30 pm

Postby ianq » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:20 pm

deltaend wrote:You can already use Rsync, Cwrsync, Unison, etc with SyncBackSE (what DeltaCopy uses). SyncBack can kick off the command line after it is finished or before it runs.

Not really, as you can't use it to shift the files to the destination INSTEAD of using the SE copy function.
deltaend wrote:Also... for those of you who use DeltaCopy to transfer files over the web vs a regular Rsync server... do you realize how insecure a DeltaCopy server is? It is almost as bad as having full read/write annon FTP servers running with all your private data on them. DeltaCopy is designed to be an internal network resource for small companies who don't want to mess with full blown Rsync.

Agreed! DeltaCopy (which I use at times) should only EVER be used over a secure VPN connection, and a secure VPN connection should be IP to IP address supported by a hardware firewall!
deltaend wrote:Ian, go go get that performance up! Do it! :)

The trouble is that I've got many things to write in my spare time, as so much code out there makes me unhappy! :-) You shouldn't have to write everything yourself to get it done right!

That said, it isn't the rsync camps fault - they only wrote it for UNIX. And it isn't really cygwin fault either, they provide an OK general framework to use UNIX programs on windows.
So it's amazing that it works at all..

But it IS really odd that no one has made a native windows one by now - or not that I can find, and I have looked around a lot!!
ianq
Advanced
Advanced
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:13 am

Postby tbsky » Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:05 pm

hi:
we are about to buy acronis true image workstation as our backup solution. i thought syncback pro is better in many ways, but we have many
outlook pst files to backup in every computer. will syncback pro support "rsync" like function in the near future? we hope we can use your great product.

mickyj wrote:Hi, maybe in future, but we've got many other features to add before then.
tbsky
Enthusiastic
Enthusiastic
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:00 am

Before the big jump, consider zsync ?

Postby peterm » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:52 pm

When it comes to druthers...

As I understand it, rsync ops require a running process at the source. I still prefer the option which the author of zsync was developing, last I heard. ie, one which allows copying from a source without the need for the source to be running a server process.
peterm
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 am

Postby ianq » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:11 am

technically speaking, you are NEVER going to able to run a full rsync type process with something running at both ends, as you need a process at both the source and the destination to doing 'sliding windows' on the files to figure out which blocks need to be transfered.

So you are always going to need software at both ends - though you wouldn't need it running all the time if you could remote start the other end with some other mechanism..

Ian
ianq
Advanced
Advanced
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:13 am

Client ops without live rsynch server process

Postby peterm » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:37 am

Ian:

You always going to need a server process of some kind at the source end, but it need not necessarily be an rsync-specific process. zsync was designed to have some rsync stuff going on in the client, but working only with say, HTTP, at the other end to provide the downloaded files.

The other part of the process, dealing with delta details, is supplied by pre-processing at the HTTP end, leaving synching details in a separate static file, so the client can read those details stored alongside the main source.

Most suitable for distribution of a new file release to many interested parties.

see:http://zsync.moria.org.uk/
peterm
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 am

Postby ianq » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:58 am

yes that will work - BUT you still had to have a process at both ends, you're just running one of them at a different time to make a sync file.

But that isn't really what rsync is truly about - what you describe is more the traditional diff process, where you are updating in one location, then sending the differences to other location to be brought up to date from a known base. Then it makes much more sense to use a static difference file, as we all do!

Ian
ianq
Advanced
Advanced
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:13 am

Next

Return to SyncBackPro V6/V5 (commercial)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

User Control Panel

Login

Who is online

In total there are 6 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 725 on Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:37 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests