Sync apps

Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

Does that make sense?

Looking for experienced answers. No Google'd replies needed. I can
Google, too.

Thanks in advance.

--
Peter Kozlov

Peter,
I would suggest robocopy (installed by default on Windows). Just make
sure NOT to use the /mir option.


On 6/7/2018 4:54 PM, Peter Kozlov wrote:
Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

Does that make sense?

Looking for experienced answers. No Google'd replies needed. I can
Google, too.

Thanks in advance.

On 06/07/2018 04:54 PM, Peter Kozlov wrote:
Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

Does that make sense?

Looking for experienced answers. No Google'd replies needed. I can
Google, too.

Thanks in advance.

Robocopy source dest /MIR

On 06/07/2018 05:08 PM, Dick wrote:
Peter,
I would suggest robocopy (installed by default on Windows).Â* Just make
sure NOT to use the /mir option.


On 6/7/2018 4:54 PM, Peter Kozlov wrote:
Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

Does that make sense?

Looking for experienced answers. No Google'd replies needed. I can
Google, too.

Thanks in advance.


What's wrong with /MIR. I use it in every sync I do. It removes
deleted files from the dest, or adds new ones, or updates changes.
Seems to be what the OP wants.

I did read his post again and actually don't see him say anything about
"if B was deleted in A then delete B", so maybe MIR may not be his deal.

On 6/7/18 5:08 PM, Dick wrote:
Peter,
I would suggest robocopy (installed by default on Windows).Â* Just make
sure NOT to use the /mir option.


On 6/7/2018 4:54 PM, Peter Kozlov wrote:
Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

Does that make sense?

Looking for experienced answers. No Google'd replies needed. I can
Google, too.

Thanks in advance.



I see you're named "Dick"...guess that explains the top-post ;-)

Travis Bickle wrote:

Dick wrote:

Peter Kozlov wrote:

Have any of you use Sync software?

I would suggest robocopy (installed by default on Windows).* Just
make sure NOT to use the /mir option.

I see you're named "Dick"...guess that explains the top-post ;-)

I see you didn't bother to rearrange the quoted posts to be in the order
that YOU proclaim is better. If you quote in your then put the quoted
content in the SAME ORDER as for your reply; else, all that noise about
top- versus bottom-quoting is just that, noise. If you are too lazy to
arrange quoted content in your extolled posting order then don't bitch
about the order that others use.

Notice I bottom-post just like you. Also notice that I rearranged the
order of the quoted replies in the same order as I post. You do NOT
have a preferred posting order as exemplified by your reply. You're too
lazy. You also didn't bother to trim the quoted content in your reply.

Peter Kozlov wrote:

Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

Syncback Free

The only thing missing in the free version is VSS support (to copy files
that have a handle on them because they are inuse). I use it to copy my
AppData folder (and lots of others). Some Syncback jobs copy the files
into local files that are then sync'ed to a server using OneDrive or
Google Drive so I have local and online copies. There are files inuse
during these data-only backups, like Outlook's PST file, but Syncback
Free will error (you can see it in its log) but it will continue with
copying the rest of the files. There are lots of options on how you
want to compare the source and target folders, like in only one
direction (backup) or do a mirror copy (both directions). You can have
it copy only the files that have changed or are new instead of all
files. That's how I configure its jobs since I don't need to transfer a
copy of a file that is already in the target folder.

If you go with robocopy, be aware that it has retry options which
default to 1 million retries of copying a file when an error occurs with
30 seconds between retries. robocopy can hang a long time trying to
copy a file that fails the operation, like when the file is inuse.
robocopy will appear to hang on the file it has problem copying. Use
the /r:n (retry count) and /w:n (wait until next retry) options to
reduce that time to something reasonable. If the file isn't going to
succeed on a copy in, say, 5 minutes then it is likely to never work
during a reasonable backup time.

It's been a long time since I switched from robocopy to SyncBack Free,
so I may not remember all the reasons why I switched to SyncBack. Some
of the reasons a

- I can group similar backup jobs together: they all get ran together bu
in the order listed instead of running independently. I've used other
payware file copy tools that would let me conditionally define when a
job got ran based on whether or not a prior job completed okay.
Letting me run the jobs in the listed order in Syncback pretty much
lets me ensure the jobs run in the order that I want.
- Since I'm in SyncBack when I'm defining or changing backup jobs, I can
schedule them there instead go into Task Scheduler to schedule
robocopy jobs. Task Scheduler has more options but I don't need them,
so I just have SyncBack create the Task Scheduler events.
- Since Syncback is a program, there is no window opened when it runs a
scheduled job. robocopy is a console-mode program, so you'll end up
with a command shell (aka DOS prompt) window left open while robocopy
runs. Doesn't sound like a big deal until you're in a fullscreen
video game and it gets hung while robocopy runs because it opened a
console window.
- SyncBack can backup into a compressed .zip file instead of as separate
files. You could compress robocopy's copied files into a .zip file
providing you get a zip tool that has a CLI (command-line interface)
AND you manage to schedule it in Task Scheduler. You'd want to zip
after robocopy completed. You could put robocopy into a batch (.bat)
file, test its return/errorlevel code, and if okay then run the zip
tool. With SyncBack, I just use its GUI to define the jobs and enable
the .zip option.
- Like with many backup programs, you can run commands before and after
the Syncback starts and after it completes. For example, for SyncBack
jobs where I'm zipping the backed up files, I don't want the old .zip
occupying space which could result in not enough room for the new
.zip. I define a pre-job command to delete the old .zip before
SyncBack starts to create a new .zip. I don't need multiple zips of
data-only backups since all of those files are already included in my
daily scheduled backup jobs (Macrium Reflect Free), so I also don't
need to worry about losing a duplicate backup of my data files if
SyncBack should fail. The online storage is limited, so I need to get
rid of the old .zip before Syncback starts creating a new one. I
used the post-job command feature, too. For one group of backups in
SyncBack, I run a pre-command that mounts a USB HDD that remains
always attached to my PC. Then the backjob runs. After the job
completes, a post-command unmounts the USB drive. That way, the files
on the backup USB drive are susceptible only during the backup job;
else, the files are somewhat protected from malware, ransomware, or
users accidentally deleting files on the wrong drive.
- I currently save the data files into a local folder that gets sync'ed
to the server using OneDrive. Syncback saves into a local folder and
that one is specified in the local OneDrive client to sync a copy to
my OneDrive account. I also, as mentioned above, have a copy on the
local USB drive. And there's yet another copy of those files in my
image backups using Macrium Reflect.
- If you want even more secure backups than putting them on a USB drive
that is normally inaccessible, Syncback supports FTP. That means if
you run an FTP server or use a service that lets you transfer using
FTP, you could save your backups or duplicates of them to an FTP
server. Ransomware cannot get to the FTP copies because it won't know
the login credentials (username and password) for the FTP server.
When I do my next PC build, I'll use the old one as a file server and
add FTP to it so I could save duplicates of my backups over there. I
like speedy local copies but also like online (data-only) and offline
copies, and later I could add FTP into the mix.
- The latest V8 is supposed to have ransomware protection; i.e., somehow
it protects the backups. With the number of backups and duplicates of
them that I have now in avoiding ransomware, this isn't an important
feature to me ... yet. I think the way its ransomware protection
works is it has to detect ransomware which means it won't run its
backup jobs to step atop your old backup files. Okay, but I don't see
how that stops ransomware from direction touching the backup files.
Despite what I've done, ransomware can find the local folders used by
OneDrive to corrupt/encrypt those files which would then get uploaded
into my OneDrive account. It is possible to read the registry for
mount points to find previously mounted USB drives to find them again,
mount them (if still attached), and corrupt/encrypt files there, too.
FTP would still be protected since ransonware wouldn't know the login
credentials to the FTP server. See their article at:

https://www.2brightsparks.com/resour...-syncback.html

Their first method has you use a bait file. If it gets changed, the
Syncback job won't run; however, that only keeps Syncback from
stepping atop your good backup copies, not preventing the ransomware
itself from finding and directly altering those backup files. Using
bait files is how some other anti-ransomware works (they add their own
bait files and monitor those for alteration). Syncback has an
anti-ransomware feature to prevent it from overwriting the target
folder/files. That is NOT going to protect you from ransomware
finding those backups and altering them itself. Syncback's feature
just means you can't blame them for overwriting the backups. "It's
not our fault" is really to protect them from possible litigation.

The payware versions of SyncBack has more features, like VSS copying,
but I haven't yet needed them. If I needed VSS, I'd pay $20 for the
Lite version of SyncBack. You can see the feature comparison at:

https://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/compare.html

So, Peter, was that enough for you without someone doling out Google
hits? I don't see Google hits as necessarily bad, especially if someone
were to point at reviews comparing several similar solutions. I use
Syncback Free and have for some time. I've used robocopy in the past
but it doesn't have as many features as Syncback Free. I might go to
SyncBack Lite ($20) when I setup an FTP server host but that'll probably
happen only after getting hit with ransomware (which will then have me
reevaluate my choice of security software, too). I'm not one gullible
to popups from rogueware sites telling me, oh yes, my computer must be
infected because they say so. I'm also not gullible to the scammers
that phone me saying to look in Event Viewer to notice all the errors
that must surely be due to malware.

On 2018-06-07, Dick wrote:
Peter,
I would suggest robocopy (installed by default on Windows). Just make
sure NOT to use the /mir option.

I've read all the posts. Dick, I like your idea. I read the help file
on robocopy and I think that will do just fine.

Thanks to all that replied.

On 6/7/2018 4:54 PM, Peter Kozlov wrote:
Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

Does that make sense?

Looking for experienced answers. No Google'd replies needed. I can
Google, too.

Thanks in advance.




--
Peter Kozlov

On 6/7/2018 8:34 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
The only thing missing in the free version is VSS support (to copy files
that have a handle on them because they are inuse). I use it to copy my
AppData folder (and lots of others). Some Syncback jobs copy the files
into local files that are then sync'ed to a server using OneDrive or
Google Drive so I have local and online copies. There are files inuse
during these data-only backups, like Outlook's PST file, but Syncback
Free will error (you can see it in its log) but it will continue with
copying the rest of the files. There are lots of options on how you
want to compare the source and target folders, like in only one
direction (backup) or do a mirror copy (both directions). You can have
it copy only the files that have changed or are new instead of all
files. That's how I configure its jobs since I don't need to transfer a
copy of a file that is already in the target folder.

If you go with robocopy, be aware that it has retry options which
default to 1 million retries of copying a file when an error occurs with
30 seconds between retries. robocopy can hang a long time trying to
copy a file that fails the operation, like when the file is inuse.
robocopy will appear to hang on the file it has problem copying. Use
the /r:n (retry count) and /w:n (wait until next retry) options to
reduce that time to something reasonable. If the file isn't going to
succeed on a copy in, say, 5 minutes then it is likely to never work
during a reasonable backup time.

It's been a long time since I switched from robocopy to SyncBack Free,
so I may not remember all the reasons why I switched to SyncBack. Some
of the reasons a

- I can group similar backup jobs together: they all get ran together bu
in the order listed instead of running independently. I've used other
payware file copy tools that would let me conditionally define when a
job got ran based on whether or not a prior job completed okay.
Letting me run the jobs in the listed order in Syncback pretty much
lets me ensure the jobs run in the order that I want.
- Since I'm in SyncBack when I'm defining or changing backup jobs, I can
schedule them there instead go into Task Scheduler to schedule
robocopy jobs. Task Scheduler has more options but I don't need them,
so I just have SyncBack create the Task Scheduler events.
- Since Syncback is a program, there is no window opened when it runs a
scheduled job. robocopy is a console-mode program, so you'll end up
with a command shell (aka DOS prompt) window left open while robocopy
runs. Doesn't sound like a big deal until you're in a fullscreen
video game and it gets hung while robocopy runs because it opened a
console window.
- SyncBack can backup into a compressed .zip file instead of as separate
files. You could compress robocopy's copied files into a .zip file
providing you get a zip tool that has a CLI (command-line interface)
AND you manage to schedule it in Task Scheduler. You'd want to zip
after robocopy completed. You could put robocopy into a batch (.bat)
file, test its return/errorlevel code, and if okay then run the zip
tool. With SyncBack, I just use its GUI to define the jobs and enable
the .zip option.
- Like with many backup programs, you can run commands before and after
the Syncback starts and after it completes. For example, for SyncBack
jobs where I'm zipping the backed up files, I don't want the old .zip
occupying space which could result in not enough room for the new
.zip. I define a pre-job command to delete the old .zip before
SyncBack starts to create a new .zip. I don't need multiple zips of
data-only backups since all of those files are already included in my
daily scheduled backup jobs (Macrium Reflect Free), so I also don't
need to worry about losing a duplicate backup of my data files if
SyncBack should fail. The online storage is limited, so I need to get
rid of the old .zip before Syncback starts creating a new one. I
used the post-job command feature, too. For one group of backups in
SyncBack, I run a pre-command that mounts a USB HDD that remains
always attached to my PC. Then the backjob runs. After the job
completes, a post-command unmounts the USB drive. That way, the files
on the backup USB drive are susceptible only during the backup job;
else, the files are somewhat protected from malware, ransomware, or
users accidentally deleting files on the wrong drive.
- I currently save the data files into a local folder that gets sync'ed
to the server using OneDrive. Syncback saves into a local folder and
that one is specified in the local OneDrive client to sync a copy to
my OneDrive account. I also, as mentioned above, have a copy on the
local USB drive. And there's yet another copy of those files in my
image backups using Macrium Reflect.
- If you want even more secure backups than putting them on a USB drive
that is normally inaccessible, Syncback supports FTP. That means if
you run an FTP server or use a service that lets you transfer using
FTP, you could save your backups or duplicates of them to an FTP
server. Ransomware cannot get to the FTP copies because it won't know
the login credentials (username and password) for the FTP server.
When I do my next PC build, I'll use the old one as a file server and
add FTP to it so I could save duplicates of my backups over there. I
like speedy local copies but also like online (data-only) and offline
copies, and later I could add FTP into the mix.
- The latest V8 is supposed to have ransomware protection; i.e., somehow
it protects the backups. With the number of backups and duplicates of
them that I have now in avoiding ransomware, this isn't an important
feature to me ... yet. I think the way its ransomware protection
works is it has to detect ransomware which means it won't run its
backup jobs to step atop your old backup files. Okay, but I don't see
how that stops ransomware from direction touching the backup files.
Despite what I've done, ransomware can find the local folders used by
OneDrive to corrupt/encrypt those files which would then get uploaded
into my OneDrive account. It is possible to read the registry for
mount points to find previously mounted USB drives to find them again,
mount them (if still attached), and corrupt/encrypt files there, too.
FTP would still be protected since ransonware wouldn't know the login
credentials to the FTP server. See their article at:

https://www.2brightsparks.com/resour...-syncback.html

Their first method has you use a bait file. If it gets changed, the
Syncback job won't run; however, that only keeps Syncback from
stepping atop your good backup copies, not preventing the ransomware
itself from finding and directly altering those backup files. Using
bait files is how some other anti-ransomware works (they add their own
bait files and monitor those for alteration). Syncback has an
anti-ransomware feature to prevent it from overwriting the target
folder/files. That is NOT going to protect you from ransomware
finding those backups and altering them itself. Syncback's feature
just means you can't blame them for overwriting the backups. "It's
not our fault" is really to protect them from possible litigation.

The payware versions of SyncBack has more features, like VSS copying,
but I haven't yet needed them. If I needed VSS, I'd pay $20 for the
Lite version of SyncBack. You can see the feature comparison at:

https://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/compare.html

So, Peter, was that enough for you without someone doling out Google
hits? I don't see Google hits as necessarily bad, especially if someone
were to point at reviews comparing several similar solutions. I use
Syncback Free and have for some time. I've used robocopy in the past
but it doesn't have as many features as Syncback Free. I might go to
SyncBack Lite ($20) when I setup an FTP server host but that'll probably
happen only after getting hit with ransomware (which will then have me
reevaluate my choice of security software, too). I'm not one gullible
to popups from rogueware sites telling me, oh yes, my computer must be
infected because they say so. I'm also not gullible to the scammers
that phone me saying to look in Event Viewer to notice all the errors
that must surely be due to malware.


I also use "Syncback Free" to keep the files on two computers in sync so
both computers have the same information. However I use the native
Windows 10 File history to back up one of the computers to an external
drive. This is an active backup and done when the computer thinks it
needs to back up, not the operator

--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre

On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 13:54:00 -0700, Peter Kozlov
wrote:

Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

What you are describing is an incremental backup. You can do this with
Macrium Reflect.

On 2018-06-09, Stephen Chadfield wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 13:54:00 -0700, Peter Kozlov
wrote:

Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

What you are describing is an incremental backup. You can do this with
Macrium Reflect.

I just wanted this for files. Robocopy sounds better to me. I don't want
a back and restore method for this task. I just want software that looks
at A and checks to see if B has what A has and if not, it copies A to B.
If I delete from A I do not want this to delete from B. When B becomes
full, I just remove B and delete all that is on A and the process starts
all over again.

B is a record of everything that was ever added to A. If I deicde
something should not be on B, it will require my direct intervention to
remove it manually from B and A so that it doesn't get pushed from A to
B all over again.

B is just a simple removable hard drive. The contents of which are saved
to a text file. And if I need something, I will consult the text file to
see which drive has what I need. It's all pretty simple. No software
required to access to the data on B or A.

--
Peter Kozlov

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-06-07 16:54, Peter Kozlov wrote:
Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

Does that make sense?

Looking for experienced answers. No Google'd replies needed. I can
Google, too.

Thanks in advance.

I assume A is your working disk, and B is your archive.

Use one of the backup programs that will do incremental backups. After
the first backup, only changed or new files are backed up. So if you
backup A to B, B will have what is no longer on A plus whatever is new
or different.

Exactly! For example, I use Cobian Backup to do a one-way 'sync' by
using Cobian Backup's Incremental backup. No need for a seperate 'sync'
program.

Also the opposite is often true: A 'sync' program which can do a
one-way sync is effectively an incremental backup program. I
realized/used that [1] when I couldn't find a good incremental backup
program for backing up an Android device to a (SMB) Network Share.

[1] SyncMe Wireless
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bv.wifisync

On 2018-06-09, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-06-07 16:54, Peter Kozlov wrote:
Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

Does that make sense?

Looking for experienced answers. No Google'd replies needed. I can
Google, too.

Thanks in advance.

I assume A is your working disk, and B is your archive.

Use one of the backup programs that will do incremental backups. After
the first backup, only changed or new files are backed up. So if you
backup A to B, B will have what is no longer on A plus whatever is new
or different.

Exactly! For example, I use Cobian Backup to do a one-way 'sync' by
using Cobian Backup's Incremental backup. No need for a seperate 'sync'
program.

Also the opposite is often true: A 'sync' program which can do a
one-way sync is effectively an incremental backup program. I
realized/used that [1] when I couldn't find a good incremental backup
program for backing up an Android device to a (SMB) Network Share.

[1] SyncMe Wireless
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bv.wifisync

What is the backup? Is it just a collection of individual files easily
accessible to anyone plugging in the B drive, or is software required
to restore and read the backup. If the latter, this is not what I am
looking for. The one way sync would be better.

--
Peter Kozlov

Peter Kozlov wrote:
On 2018-06-09, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-06-07 16:54, Peter Kozlov wrote:
Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

Does that make sense?

Looking for experienced answers. No Google'd replies needed. I can
Google, too.

Thanks in advance.

I assume A is your working disk, and B is your archive.

Use one of the backup programs that will do incremental backups. After
the first backup, only changed or new files are backed up. So if you
backup A to B, B will have what is no longer on A plus whatever is new
or different.

Exactly! For example, I use Cobian Backup to do a one-way 'sync' by
using Cobian Backup's Incremental backup. No need for a seperate 'sync'
program.

Also the opposite is often true: A 'sync' program which can do a
one-way sync is effectively an incremental backup program. I
realized/used that [1] when I couldn't find a good incremental backup
program for backing up an Android device to a (SMB) Network Share.

[1] SyncMe Wireless
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bv.wifisync

What is the backup? Is it just a collection of individual files easily
accessible to anyone plugging in the B drive, or is software required
to restore and read the backup. If the latter, this is not what I am
looking for. The one way sync would be better.

The backup is just files in folders, organized the same as the source
(A). Cobian Backup *can* compress or/and encrypt the backed up files,
but by default it does not do that.

So yes, "Is it just a collection of individual files easily accessible
to anyone plugging in the B drive".

The fun part is that for this very reason, Cobian Backup only has a
backup facility, no restore facility. And the author - rightly so -
refuses to add a restore facility, despite - clueless - users asking for
one.

On 2018-06-09, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Peter Kozlov wrote:
On 2018-06-09, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-06-07 16:54, Peter Kozlov wrote:
Have any of you use Sync software?

Here's what I need to do.

I have data that grows daily on a server share. Not only does it grow,
but sometimes items are deleted. What I want is not truly a sync. What
I need is more like, compare A to B and if A has something B does not,
then copy A to B.

B is drive that grows and grows and when I fill it up, I replace B
with a new blank drive.

A is daiily work. At the end of the day, whatever is on A that isn't
on B needs to be copied over.

A is deleted whenever I need it cleared.

B is a running backup of all things that created daily on A.

Does that make sense?

Looking for experienced answers. No Google'd replies needed. I can
Google, too.

Thanks in advance.

I assume A is your working disk, and B is your archive.

Use one of the backup programs that will do incremental backups. After
the first backup, only changed or new files are backed up. So if you
backup A to B, B will have what is no longer on A plus whatever is new
or different.

Exactly! For example, I use Cobian Backup to do a one-way 'sync' by
using Cobian Backup's Incremental backup. No need for a seperate 'sync'
program.

Also the opposite is often true: A 'sync' program which can do a
one-way sync is effectively an incremental backup program. I
realized/used that [1] when I couldn't find a good incremental backup
program for backing up an Android device to a (SMB) Network Share.

[1] SyncMe Wireless
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bv.wifisync

What is the backup? Is it just a collection of individual files easily
accessible to anyone plugging in the B drive, or is software required
to restore and read the backup. If the latter, this is not what I am
looking for. The one way sync would be better.

The backup is just files in folders, organized the same as the source
(A). Cobian Backup *can* compress or/and encrypt the backed up files,
but by default it does not do that.

So yes, "Is it just a collection of individual files easily accessible
to anyone plugging in the B drive".

The fun part is that for this very reason, Cobian Backup only has a
backup facility, no restore facility. And the author - rightly so -
refuses to add a restore facility, despite - clueless - users asking for
one.

This does sound viable then. I'll look at it. I assume it has a
scheduling facility?

--
Peter Kozlov