Compare options // use slower method...?

SyncBackFree is the freeware version of SyncBack. It is *not* an evaluation version of SyncBackPro/SE/Lite.
Post Reply
Sandstone
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:49 am

Compare options // use slower method...?

Post by Sandstone » Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:24 am

Hi, does someone understand the setting in the profile setup under "compare options" there is a checkbox for "use slower but more reliable method of file change detection".

I checked this and to have it "Always use slower but more reliable method of file change detection" because I am worried that something could be missed if it is not checked.

Can someone help me understand this better?

cliffhanger
Expert
Expert
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:59 pm

Re: Compare options // use slower method...?

Post by cliffhanger » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:34 pm

Hi

As per the Help (press F1 with Compare Options settings page open) these settings are for situations where you have reason not to trust the maintenance (by the file systems/firmware/software involved) of the Last Modified stamps of the files on each side (and/or the Sizes will not change). An example is quoted in the Help. You have not provided any background on this possibility on your system, so I cannot speculate.

Even if that is the case, it is unlikely the 'Always use...' setting will get you anything more than extra CPU/disk thrashing as it tells SB that regardless of any 'obvious' differences discovered already (LastModified stamps different and/or Sizes different), SB should also hash-compare any such obviously-different files anyway. This means that not only will copying of obviously-different files will take place anyway (whether you enable the 'Always use...' setting or not) but using this Always option will mean even more files will be hash-compared, slowing down the profile and adding extra CPU load & disk thrashing by hash-comparing obviously-different files anyway. You would gain nothing decision-wise, as copying such files would have happened anyway (with or without hashing). The only obvious reason for using the 'Always use...'setting is if you are using the kind of profile that stores 'last-run state' (for comparison of 'old' hash values with 'current' values next run) but as the Free version does not support such profiles anyway. there is no point using it for that reason in the freeware.

TL;DR I have been using SB for over a decade, and never felt the need to use hash-comparison on pure Windows systems - that is, with no non-Windows aspects (e.g. S/FTP software, NAS firmware...) involved, and have never knowingly lost any changes to data. If you don't know of a reason why you might do so, I suggest you skip hashing unless you know better, and definitely skip the 'Always...' option for the reasons mentioned above.

cliffhanger
Expert
Expert
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:59 pm

Re: Compare options // use slower method...?

Post by cliffhanger » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:45 pm

Sorry, I forgot to increase the font size in case you have sight issues, and cannot now edit my post. Hopefully you can zoom in via your browser using Ctrl_numpad+ (likewise Ctrl_numpad- to zoom out, Ctrl_numpad-0 to reset) if needed

Sandstone
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:49 am

Re: Compare options // use slower method...?

Post by Sandstone » Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:59 pm

Thank you, sorry about the text size if that was annoying, I do not have sight issues, I don't remember why I did that.

Anyways, thank you for your response. I read the help section too, and also did a search for what hash values are (new to me). I am using Windows and I don't have any reason to think my time stamp or file size would not be enough.

I've deselected this option now. I also don't want to thrash my CPU, which I assume means decreasing it's life span or performance over time.

Post Reply