locked
FileSyncProvider vs Synctoy RRS feed

  • Question

  • Has someone built a file sync solution with Sync Services for File Systems that emulates synctoy?

     

    Is this possible?

     

    The reason I ask is that after trying many different options in Sync Services for File Systems, I cannot get the same performance as Synctoy.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Moved by Max Wang_1983 Thursday, April 21, 2011 9:59 PM forum consolidation (From:SyncFx - Technical Discussion [ReadOnly])
    Tuesday, July 1, 2008 11:56 AM

Answers

All replies

  • What version of SyncToy are you using?

     

    Also, what scenario are you comparing between the two and how much difference do you see?

     

     

    Tuesday, July 1, 2008 5:11 PM
    Moderator
  • Sync Services for File Systems took 89 seconds to do the 'same work' as synctoy 2.0 did in 22 seconds.

    (see log below)

    So, I've been trying various options, using the log and UI messages from Sychtoy as a guide to implementing options.

    So, my question is has anyone written an emulation of synctoy in code?

    Is it possible? Has anyone out there used  Sync Services for File Systems and had their code perform as well as Synctoy?

     

    FYI, same problem w both in preview mode.

     

    (If not, I guess it makes sense to use the synctoycmd.exe.)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    SYNC: 07/01/2008 14:15:13:012: -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SYNC: 07/01/2008 14:15:13:012: Starting SyncToy, version 2.0.0.0, built 10/12/2007 1:10:32 PM.
    SYNC: 07/01/2008 14:15:33:089: Preview of AWH (C:\Documents and Settings\estutsman\My Documents\, P:\Sync\) in time 00:00:15:905.
    SyncToy action was 'Synchronize'
    Found 12 actions to perform.
    Found 22,605 files that did not require action.
    Analyzed 1,421.2 files per second.
    Avoided copying 1,396,314,639 bytes in 22,605 files.
    Saved approximately 00:46:32:00 by not copying any files.


    SYNC: 07/01/2008 14:15:34:073: SyncToy run of AWH (C:\Documents and Settings\estutsman\My Documents\, P:\Sync\) completed at 7/1/2008 2:15:34 PM.
    SyncToy action was 'Synchronize'.
    SyncToy options were:
     Active for run all
     All files included
     Do not check file contents
     Include read-only files
     Do not include hidden files
     Do not include system files
     Do not backup older files
     Some subfolders included
    SyncToy run took 00:00:00:953.
    Copied 14,410,103 bytes in 12 files in 00:00:00:953.
    Bytes per second 15,119,570.7, files per second 12.6.
    Avoided copying 1,396,314,639 bytes in 22,605 files that did not require action.
    Saved approximately 00:01:32:351 by not copying all files.

    Tuesday, July 1, 2008 6:50 PM
  • Just to make sure - when measuring Sync Services for File Systems, you had already executed a previous sync?

     

    The reason I ask this is if you are syncing for the first time, the providers will spend some time building up the metadata for all the files in scope.

     

    Subsequent syncs should be faster, since the providers don't have to build up the metadata from scratch.

     

    Let us know and then we can try doing a similar compare.

     

    Wednesday, July 2, 2008 5:58 PM
    Moderator
  •  

    SyncToy is built on top of File Sync Provider. Their performance should be very close to each other. From your logs, I saw two interesting facts:

     

    1. You applied some filters in your SyncToy setting. You excluded hidden and system files. Please check if you applied the same set of filters on your File Sync Provider solution. Please also check if you excluded any subfolders in SyncToy as well.

     

     Do not check file contents
     Include read-only files
     Do not include hidden files
     Do not include system files

    Some subfolders included

     

    2. For most files in your folder pair, they are identical and no action is needed. It means that you have done an initial sync before, or you did a xcopy recently before your initial sync. How about your File Sync Provider solution? Can you register the events to print out the summary as well?

     

    Found 12 actions to perform.
    Found 22,605 files that did not require action.
    Analyzed 1,421.2 files per second.

     

    SYNC: 07/01/2008 14:15:33:089: Preview of AWH (C:\Documents and Settings\estutsman\My Documents\, P:\Sync\) in time 00:00:15:905.

    SyncToy run took 00:00:00:953.

     

    If you still have problems, please send your file sync provider solution code to us. We like to take a look.

     

    Thanks,

    Dong 

    Thursday, July 3, 2008 12:35 AM
    Moderator
  • The times reflect sunsequent syncs.

     

     

     

    Thursday, July 3, 2008 2:28 PM
  • SYNC: 07/01/2008 14:15:13:012:
    completed at 7/1/2008 2:15:34 PM.

    I used the above times from the log to calculate the SyncToy time from

    starting a Run to completion.

    SyncToy calculates the changes much faster than FileSyncProviders

    which seems to be the problem.

    I cut the FileSyncProviders  time in half by explicitly calling detect changes.
    When called implicitly, uploads and downloads are calculated

    seperately.
    Explicitly they're calculated once as 'ready'

     

     

    Thursday, July 3, 2008 3:29 PM
  • SyncToy Preview calls the detect changes for both endpoints. If you click "Preview" and then "Run" from the SyncToy UI, the detect changes time is not included in the sync time.

     

    Thanks,

    Dong

     

    Thursday, July 10, 2008 11:05 PM
    Moderator
  • I'm currently building one, for use in our worldwide offices.

     

    You can find it at http://www.codeplex.com/FileSynchronizer1

     

    It is rather rough at the edges but I'm satisfied with the speed.

    Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:00 PM
  • The actual syncing is OK.

    It's the detection of the changes that happens much slower than using synctoy.

     

    (As I have tested repeatedly on a folder pair the Synctoy does the entire ptocess in 22 seconds and the frmaeork does in 45. detecting the changes is 90% of the time)

     

    How is the detection in the framework different from synctoy?

    What option should I use to emulate Synctoy's detection?

     

    Can anyone provide an example that shows options that provide detection that performs as well as synctoy?

     

     

     

     

     

    Monday, July 28, 2008 1:21 PM
  • Hello,

     

    Did you try the application at www.codeplex.com\FileSynchronizer1 ?

     

    It has logging per folderpair, which you can view.

     

    Kind regards,

     

    Hans

    Monday, July 28, 2008 1:26 PM