Why an easy to use, portable RSYNC for Windows is important

Any topic that does not fit into the other categories.

Moderators: usdcs, Andrew Lee, webfork

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7499
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Why an easy to use, portable RSYNC for Windows is important

#1 Post by webfork » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:37 pm

I'd really like to see this come together and here's why...
  1. Fewer writes to external Flash media mean it could last last YEARS longer than it would under normal circumstances.
  2. This is exacerbated by the fact that Microsoft, Adobe, and many other file types are only going to get bigger over time. Yet the actual change to individual files when you make minor changes probably hasn't increased much over time.
  3. If a program like this takes off and becomes widely available, ordinary developers will start making software that specifically tries to keep file changes to a minimum based on actual changes. The comparison is saving an entirely new matrix or saving a new "layer" to an existing structure.
... I'll see about putting a bounty on its creation once I get some money together. Maybe post a request to DonationCoder or something.

Background: this post was drawn from another thread about my research on RSYNC. However, I think its particularly relevant to portable users (and really anyone who does most of their work on flash-based storage).
Last edited by webfork on Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: (added a note about background, since this topic kinda comes out of nowhere)
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7499
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Why an easy to use, portable RSYNC for Windows is import

#2 Post by webfork » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:28 pm

Old thread update: Duplicati answers this issue. However, this program only works with backups rather than synchronization. Might make a feature request on this. On the other hand, it does provide incremental backups, which is also awesome.
Last edited by webfork on Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: (fixed link)
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7499
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Why an easy to use, portable RSYNC for Windows is import

#3 Post by webfork » Fri May 16, 2014 7:04 pm

Old thread update:

In the absence of a clear freeware or portable RSYNC program coming up in my search, I wanted to point out that SyncBreeze is a potential (non-free) bit-level sync program. http://www.syncbreeze.com/

There IS a free version and softpedia lists "bit level" synchronization as an option within it, the SyncBreeze manual (http://www.flexense.com/documents/syncbreeze_manual.pdf) says that the it's only available in the "ultimate" version (at this writing going for $50).
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7499
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Why an easy to use, portable RSYNC for Windows is import

#4 Post by webfork » Sun May 25, 2014 12:40 pm

Old thread update: one solution was found.
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Why an easy to use, portable RSYNC for Windows is import

#5 Post by Midas » Mon May 26, 2014 2:00 am

webfork wrote:Old thread update: one solution was found.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7499
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Why an easy to use, portable RSYNC for Windows is import

#6 Post by webfork » Thu Jun 05, 2014 5:19 pm

I always felt concerned that Windows, being so much more universal on the world's desktops, could be so lacking in that respect.
What's most surprising about this is the lack of interest. With the increasing popularity of flash media that has almost unlimited (and generally much faster) read speed with a life limited by disk writes, it seems like a very strange blind spot.

At least we have one more solution now -- not entirely free, but better than nothing...
Midas wrote:did you ever check TimeDicer ... there seems to be a SyncBreeze
Thanks for the suggestions ... will try to look into these along with the Bvckup 2 beta.
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Why an easy to use, portable RSYNC for Windows is import

#7 Post by Midas » Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:28 am

Rsync backup tutorial -- it's for linux, but gives you the basics:
EDIT: another similar straightforward rsync tutorial can be found at https://opensource.com/article/17/1/rsync-backup-linux...

luckyBackup Windows port (currently v0.4.8') is another related utility we should keep an eye on:
Last edited by Midas on Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: SyncBreeze

#8 Post by smaragdus » Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:07 pm

About SyncBreeze which was mentioned by webfork, I tested it several days ago and it turned out that it is so severely limited:
· Maximum Number of Files - 100,000
· Maximum Storage Capacity - 1 TB
· Maximum Number of Sync Commands - 3
that it is virtually useless for me. The limitations of the "free" (for me it is just a demo) version of SyncBreeze have been removed from Softpedia page and they are not listed in SyncBreeze versions page either. When one tries to create a fourth job a screen pops up asking whether the user would like to get one of the paid versions. I got so furious that I forgot to take a screen-shot of this pop-up screen. In short- the so called "free" version of SyncBreeze is just a bait for the paid versions, a worthless demo.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7499
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: SyncBreeze

#9 Post by webfork » Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:55 pm

smaragdus wrote:Maximum Number of Files - 100,000 ... that it is virtually useless for me
Especially for portable software users, where many programs (especially open source ones) tend to be made up of thousands of smaller files. I know I'd fill that queue up quickly.
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: SyncBreeze

#10 Post by smaragdus » Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:14 pm

@webfork
Especially for portable software users, where many programs (especially open source ones) tend to be made up of thousands of smaller files. I know I'd fill that queue up quickly.
I fully agree- my portable programs contain 13,671 folders and 126,756 files which means that even a single SyncBreeze job wouldn't be able to complete successfully.

Post Reply