Before posting, and to avoid disappointment, please read the following:

  • This forum is not for 2BrightSparks to provide technical support. It's primarily for users to help other users. Do not expect 2BrightSparks to answer any question posted to this forum.
  • If you find a bug in any of our software, please submit a support ticket. It does not matter if you are using our freeware, a beta version or you haven't yet purchased the software. We want to know about any and all bugs so we can fix them as soon as possible. We usually need more information and details from you to reproduce bugs and that is better done via a support ticket and not this forum.

Mirroring with Compression?

SyncBackFree is the freeware version of SyncBack. It is *not* an evaluation version of SyncBackPro/SE.
Post Reply
SirSoulBrother
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:10 pm

Mirroring with Compression?

Post by SirSoulBrother »

So I'm looking to mirror a large (42GB) directory that is frequently updated to my NAS unit. I think the file size can be reduced considerably using compression HOWEVER I'm not sure how SyncBack handles mirroring with compression. Will it have to compress the entire 42GB each time it mirrors? Is it going to take a considerably longer time to compare each time than if I left it as an uncompressed mirror on my NAS?
cliffhanger
Expert
Expert
Posts: 606
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:59 pm

Re: Mirroring with Compression?

Post by cliffhanger »

SyncBack achieves Compression by zipping (you can optionally also Encrypt the output). Either way, you have the option to put each Source file in an individual Destination zip of its own (named after each individual filename), or you can put all Destination files in a single-Zip with a global name of your choice. The latter might achieve better overall/total compression, especially if you have many documents that use the same format (and thus may have many strings that are common between files, e.g your address), but yes, you would likely find it slower to update one/few files that change between profile runs using the single-Zip ('one big zip') compression mode.

Whereas one zip-per-file mode is likely to be faster for smaller numbers of changes per day. The other aspect to take into account is the deletion of orphan/Destination-only files that crops up c/o deletions on Source (as implied by the definition of Mirroring). This would be vastly faster (per-file) if the profile needs only to delete a corresponding individual Zip on the Destination than if it had to rebuild the single-Zip on Destination in order to remove the partial content that represented (corresponded to) each deleted Source file.
SirSoulBrother
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Mirroring with Compression?

Post by SirSoulBrother »

Thanks for the reply. This is what I figured. But with the much data in many small files I'm wondering just how much impact, timewise the modification and re-compression of a zip file will have. I imagine it's substantial. I guess I can just try and see.
Post Reply