RE: To NAS or not to NAS

Posted by Tony Lauck (A) on November 14, 2014 at 10:32:02

In Reply to: RE: To NAS or not to NAS posted by Ryelands on November 14, 2014 at 08:17:57:

My "media" disk has 46000 files, using 2.9 TB of a 4 TB drive. This works fine using SyncBackPro v. 5 on a Windows 7 x 64 system with 12 GB of RAM.

What operating system are you using and how much RAM do you have? You might look at the performance monitor to see what is happening. If your system is paging then you might just benefit from more RAM (if possible).

SyncBackPro allows for multiple backup jobs which would probably make it possible to go beyond any limits, were they to occur. It also allows different automatic synchronization strategies when running unattended. I migrate new files to the NAS when they are found and alert on any other changes. (I don't want a file on my local disk that got modified because of "cockpit error" to automatically corrupt the backup.) I also use the program to manage several web sites that are on hosting servers as well. (For making an offsite backup of my NAS I run it on the Windows 7 machine which accesses the NAS over the network and which accesses the backup drive over ESATA from the Windows machine.)

The SyncBackPro web page says they are on version 7, but I am still running version 5 which works fine and upgrades aren't free.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

http://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/sbpro.html (Open in New Window)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - To NAS or not to NAS - mschneider 17:19:04 11/13/14 (30)

Article- The best Drives for your NAS - lokie 12:31:31 11/17/14 (1)

RE: Article- The best Drives for your NAS - beppe61 11:58:17 11/18/14 (0)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - Gary 05:34:28 11/15/14 (0)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - soundchekk 01:49:49 11/15/14 (3)

" ... IBM PCI-E networking adapter ... " - beppe61 02:54:29 11/15/14 (2)

RE: " ... IBM PCI-E networking adapter ... " - Bob_C 11:11:59 11/15/14 (1)

RE: " ... IBM PCI-E networking adapter ... " - beppe61 13:15:49 11/15/14 (0)

“Let me know what you think” : use a NAS - hfavandepas 09:02:18 11/14/14 (0)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - AbeCollins 08:13:36 11/14/14 (0)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - mschneider 08:04:33 11/14/14 (11)

QNAP or Synology - Sordidman 09:37:46 11/14/14 (7)

RE: QNAP or Synology - Bob_C 19:06:35 11/14/14 (5)

totally different companies: didn't say otherwise Syn - Sordidman 10:58:36 11/17/14 (2)

RE: totally different companies: didn't say otherwise Syn - Bob_C 15:01:01 11/17/14 (1)

no, the QNAP 210 does not -t - Sordidman 14:11:50 11/18/14 (0)

A+ for QNAP - Kal Rubinson 08:50:08 11/15/14 (0)

A + for Synology - beppe61 00:35:22 11/15/14 (0)

RE: QNAP or Synology - Tony Lauck 11:00:42 11/14/14 (0)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - mschneider 09:03:38 11/14/14 (1)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - Bob_C 23:07:50 11/14/14 (0)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - AbeCollins 08:22:54 11/14/14 (0)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - beppe61 07:27:11 11/14/14 (0)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - lokie 06:00:12 11/14/14 (6)

Hard drive space is so cheap - Sordidman 07:44:37 11/14/14 (0)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - AbeCollins 07:43:38 11/14/14 (1)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - lokie 11:41:40 11/14/14 (0)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - Tony Lauck 07:35:36 11/14/14 (2)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - Ryelands 08:17:57 11/14/14 (1)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - Tony Lauck 11/14/1410:32:02 11/14/14 (0)

Here is the thing that suprised me - Bas Horneman 04:32:02 11/14/14 (0)

Follow Ups

RE: To NAS or not to NAS - Tony Lauck 11/14/1410:32:02 11/14/14 (0)

RE: To NAS or not to NAS

Post a Message!