RSS| SilentStar | May 22, 2009 | 4.05 Build 49 |  5 out of 5 |
Extremely feature-rich and robust synchronizer.I can't recommend it enough. FYI: The current version is 4.57 |
| somusque | Dec 3, 2008 | 4.05 Build 49 | 5 out of 5 |
The new version 4.49 should now fix the issue reported here. |
| Undesired Username | Nov 25, 2008 | 4.05 Build 49 | 5 out of 5 |
^ Indeed, problem fixed. My thanks to the author. I can now use SFFS in a way that SyncBackPro does not allow: To ZIP/encrypt files and store them directly on an FTP server. (The 2BrightSparks people seem baffled that such a thing is possible. I'm baffled that I seem to be the only one backing up that way.) ^ I did not miss the "Real Time Deletions" checkbox (and the delay was set to "0"). Also, please note that "somusque" is the author. This was with version 4.47c (also duplicated with 4.48b and 4.48c): I tried setting up a profile to establish an FTP server as a mirror. I enabled mirror mode (duh), configured the mirror mode settings, unattended settings, special settings, safety settings, and all the other settings... And I could not get the scheduler to delete files on the FTP server automatically, without stopping and restarting the scheduler. If the scheduler was left running, it simply kept saying "Nothing to be done" when files were deleted from the source. All the settings seemed to be as they should be. When I ran the profile interactively, it flagged the deletions. I very much think that this is a bug because if a file is deleted on the source, the scheduler won't do anything, but if that same files is then restored to the source, the scheduler copies it again to the destination (FTP server)--even though that exact file is already there. (I can tell the file is copied over due to the time/date change.) |
| zridling | Feb 21, 2008 | 4.00 RC1 | 5 out of 5 |
Love the new, simplified UI! Far less noisy than the old one. |
| chrisparker | Nov 29, 2007 | 3.72d Build 705 | 5 out of 5 |
Awesome tool. Fast, stable, reliable. I've spent the last several years searching for a fast, reliable synchronization tool (w/ delta copy capability) for personal use. This search has led me to purchase, test, and uninstall a lot of tools (very frustrating!). Super Flexible File Synchronizer is the first sub-$100 tool I can rely on. It's been working flawlessly for almost six months (can't say that for any other sub-$100 tool with similar features). I'm running it on Vista Ultimate x64, Vista Ultimate 32-bit, and Windows XP Pro. Delta copy functions are indispensable for multi-gigabyte encrypted disk files (True-crypt), irtual machine disk images (Vmware, Virtual PC, etc), and .PST files. What use to take hours to backup/sync now takes minutes (after the first run). It has a number of useful features exposed in a fairly straitforward, easy-to use interface. Logging is good and the ability to run pre-/post-scripts is handy for more advanced operations. If you don't need delta copy (binary difference copy) capabilities, SureSync is a fantastic alternative. |
| ghammer | Nov 12, 2007 | 3.70 Build 694 RC | 5 out of 5 |
If you evaluated this tool and found a feature missing in the past, you should take another look now. I can't imagine what could be missing at this point. And, it all works well. I rarely even look at the results because I know my backup and sync have been performed exactly as I wanted. |
| hell0 | Jul 14, 2007 | 3.45 Build 604 | 5 out of 5 |
thehunger mentioned it doesn't do delta copies, it does now with the version 3.49 we are using. We copy close to 2.5TB (not GB) of user files, department files and source code over our 100Mbps MAN link to our crisis center every day in about 5 hours thanks to delta copying. The NTFS permissions, time stamps, inheritance and file attributes are all copied properly. The application is also able to compress using ZIP prior to transmission and will get decompressed on the fly on the destination. A feature I can't comment on since we don't use (CPU load gets high). I tried DeltaCopy based on rsync and cygwin but it had problems with paths/filename of more than 255 characters which made our copies fail all the time. Also it wouldn't copy the permissions so I had to run a second pass with robocopy /ATSOU (no "D") to copy the permissions over. It made the whole process a lot slower. Haven't investigated if Unison suffers the same problem -- something to be careful about with cygwin based applications. The only negative comment I would give is with the scheduler which is easy to mess up by accident and the shear amount of options available. Both are minor once you start using the application for a while. There might be a memory leak issue with the v2.04 server end (responsible for the MD5 checksumming in delta copies). I noticed an increased memory usage slowly creeping up every day. All in all we are very satisfied with the product and had no problems paying for the Pro version. |
| zridling | Apr 20, 2007 | 3.40 Build 581 RC6 | 5 out of 5 |
In the next major version, the name will evolve into the simpler ExtremeSync. And here is the author's personal home page. |
| akulich | Apr 19, 2007 | 3.40 Build 580 RC5 | 5 out of 5 |
I have used a variety of sync programs. Most of them work fine. But the feature list of SFFS is this programs strong point. There are options to do just about anything that you could need to do. Also, this is the only program that I have found to work reliably with the Amazon S3 storage system. This program will not disappoint. |
| ghammer | Apr 18, 2007 | 3.40 Build 580 RC5 | 5 out of 5 |
This is STILL the best sync/backup tool going. I won't write pages about its capabilities and options, rather just say if it involves files and directories on Windows this tool will do what you want. I see the periodic paste of a nonsense 'comparison' of Unison below. First, Unison does NOT do deltas. Nope, not an option. Unison doesn't handle open files like Outlook pst well. Unison is an arcane tool that requires a great deal of setup, config files, commandline switches. Unison is no longer developed. Try it out on Vista... SFFS is not a tool for simple backups though it will do them in an excellent fashion. It is a quite powerful, easy to use tool for ANY backup and sync need you have. Again, try it, give it your most difficult job. In less than 30 minutes you'll have the result you are looking for. |
| zridling | Apr 18, 2007 | 3.40 Build 577 RC2 | 5 out of 5 |
Wow thehunger, where to start. First, the Unison Synchronizer is fine, except that it's no longer actively developed. So how does that help? Second, If you think SFFS is no different than a "zillion run-of-the-mill file sync products" then I doubt you've used the program enough to understand it. Third, SFFS can detect and merge changes in files — even in different locations using 'SmartTracking' — or it can copy the entire file if you choose to do so within your profile. SmartTracking does what you're talking about; that is, track changes that have been made between the various invocations of your files rather than creating duplicates by merely copying files between the left and right locations. But you decide what SFFS does by properly setting up your sync profile. In attended mode inside the Synchronization Preview dialog, you can even choose the action of any specific file, one-by-one. Therefore, I think you misunderstand the nature of delta synchronization, which is a process method, not an algorithm. You can create a variety of algorithms to run a delta synchronization of your files. Dozens of types of programs — archive tools, databases, file comparison programs, for instance — have had similar sequential execution functionality for almost 20 years. So your criticism is moot. Fourth, SFFS has a Linux version. So that criticism is also moot. Fifth, "An advanced algorithm for efficiently comparing source and target directories while sending only a little bit of data across the wire, and copying only changed parts of files... that's difficult." Not really. SFFS does it. Finally, if SFFS is so bad, why are you calling for its code to be released under GPLv2? I don't get it. Super Flexible Software is a business that primarily caters to enterprise clients. Although it's pricey, we're lucky to have this software available to individual users. |
| thehunger | Apr 18, 2007 | 3.40 Build 577 RC2 |  2 out of 5 |
zriding and ghammer have given suspiciously unreserved, positive comments, so here's a different spin. This thing is pretty, it does have an ok feature list, but it comes short when you need to do truly efficient, high-volume file synchronization. Why? It doesnt do delta synchronization, that is if a file differs between source and targets, it will copy the entire file. That's a bummer if you have many large files that change. Contrast this with the free, open source Unison. It is -very- fast, since it uses an rsync-like algorithm and only copies CHANGED parts of files. So you have a 40mb presentation and changed only one slide? Unison will update the target with only the changed bits from the source, not copy the entire file. When you have many and/or large files, that really matters. Now admittedly, Unison does not have the slick gui of SFFS. It's GUI can seem a bit spartan compared to other file sync products. However, it has a few advantages up its sleeve: - cross platform, so runs on Windows, UNIX, Linux, Mac etc - FREE - secure: can use SSL-encryption - ubiquitous: most Linux distros have it available - keeps improving So why do SFFS and other products not support delta synchronization? It beats me. It is a killer feature - and would improve SFFS. My suspicion is that the stuff that SFFS programmers have written is relatively trivial to do. An advanced algorithm for efficiently comparing source and target directories while sending only a little bit of data across the wire, and copying only changed parts of files... ..thats difficult. It's not that delta sync couldn't BE in SFFS. They could simply use some of the open source code that's available for rsync or unison. It would only require a small admission from the SFFS creators: that they release the SFFS code as open source as well (at least for GPLv2 based open source). They could still charge money for SFFS, but the source should be made available.. In summary, my beef with SFFS is mainly about lacking a truly efficient synchronization algorithm and protocol, like rsync or unison. SFFS can run as a service (daemon) on the target Windows. That means the SFFS authors could also write their own algorithm, but they dont and havent. That means SFFS belongs with any of a zillion run-of-the-mill file sync products that dont cut the musterd when it comes to efficiency - all they do is copy files and present a nice gui with lots of options. |
| zridling | Mar 8, 2007 | 3.36 Build 561 RC6 | 5 out of 5 |
Yea, I think this is definitely a case for the saying: You get what you pay for. Good design makes a difference and given how complex some synching apps have become, SFFS lets you keep as simple as possible, or lets you go as deep as you want to go. |
| ghammer | Mar 8, 2007 | 3.36 Build 561 RC6 | 5 out of 5 |
This is one of the best tools for file sync or duplication to local, LAN, or FTP. I have licenses to a few other backup/sync apps that were bought before installing this. None do everything as well and effortlessly as this tool. I'm puzzled as how this has the overall rating it does. Must have been the 'free' is better crowd. The trial is completely functional. Throw your toughest job at it and see for yourself. You won't be disappointed! |
| zridling | Feb 26, 2007 | 3.35a Build 555 | 5 out of 5 |
What ghammer said. The two words I'd use to describe Super Flexible File Synchronizer (SFFS) are fast and accurate. The UI is also well thought out. Best of all, it gives you control over exactly what goes where and how it syncs — at the point of synching. It's also great for exact mirroring, and while SFFS should really be considered a commercial app; that is, an enterprise one, given its deep feature set. Its trial version is fully functional, letting you thoroughly test and compare it to other synching apps. The only sync app I've found to be as accurate is DirSync, but not nearly as fast as SFFS. It has both a wizard step-by-step mode or an advanced mode. Profiles are simple to setup, easy to alter, and can be scheduled remotely. Worth every penny to protect your files. |
| ghammer | Jan 12, 2007 | 3.30 Build 520 Beta 1 | 5 out of 5 |
This tool is excellent. Accurate, low impact on your system, highly configurable. I especially like the ability to reverse the paths when I need to restore. Try it, you'll be pleased. |
| zridling | Jul 26, 2006 | 3.00 Build 466 Beta 4 | 5 out of 5 |
A highly accurate synchronizer, too. Much better than relying on ZIP to archive files onto DVD if you ask me. |
| smfranzen | Jul 5, 2006 | 2.80 Build 454 | 5 out of 5 |
I've tried a lot of file synchronization programs and this one is at the top of the list in functionality. One of the very few that supports partial file synchronization instead of a full copy. Active development and author is very responsive to feedback. |
| svkowalski | May 16, 2006 | 2.62 Build 445 Beta 10 | 5 out of 5 |
My favorite feature is how SFFS figures out when I've moved files or renamed directories, and avoids copying those files unnecessarily. I tried MS SyncToy, which also does this, but SyncToy doesn't give me the range of options SFFS has. SFFS is fast & efficient & works the way I want. |
| zridling | Oct 14, 2005 | 2.60b Build 425 |  4 out of 5 |
Excellent synching tool, but the name should be Super Advanced File Synchronizer! |
| harmlessdrudge | Sep 4, 2005 | 2.60 Beta 1 | 5 out of 5 |
This is an outstanding program. I've been using Beyond Compare and SyncBack SE up to now and this belongs in the same league and in some ways is better. It's incredibly flexible. I would like some kind of utility to enable me to synchronize with an Internet connected drive. Neither Netdrive nor Webdrive work for me as uploaded directories are stamped with the current date and time when they are created. If anyone has a solution for that problem I'd like to know. |
| zridling | Sep 3, 2005 | 2.60 Beta 1 | 4 out of 5 |
While Super Flexible File Synchronizer is quite good, I did not find it as accurate as DirSync, which also includes a Lifetime license. |
| thehunger | Jul 25, 2005 | 2.51 Build 401 Beta 6 |  3 out of 5 |
vsgotto - check out Novell's iFolder. It's a commercial product that does multiple master delta sync, automatically, in the background. With the latest version - v3 - the client has been made open source. iFolder v3 client can do peer to peer sync, while you need the commercial server to do more. |
| ghammer | Jul 25, 2005 | 2.51 Build 401 Beta 6 | 4 out of 5 |
Nice tool for what it is intended. vsgotto- Take a look at SureSync. It will do what you ask. Best backup tool going in my opinion. http://www.softwarepursu...m/suresync/features.htm |
| vsgotto | Jul 21, 2005 | 2.51 Build 400 Beta 5 | 3 out of 5 |
This is all great, but I have yet to see anything that performs true automatic syncs. By that, I mean, if I update a file in one location, copy it somewhere else without having me to tell you or without having me wait until my scheduled sync to kick off. Anyone know of anything that does that? |
| Inray | Jul 21, 2005 | 2.51 Build 400 Beta 5 | 5 out of 5 |
I always used file/folder synchronizers for my daily backup jobs thus I had to try many of them, if not all available. The truth is that most of them are unreliable, slow and almost useless. That's weird because these programs supposed they protect user's data. Super Flexible File Syncronizer is one of the very few exceptions, a really great and trusty application. Not only it does the job, but is also the fastest one ever tried before, much faster than even the excellent SyncBack. For example, I compared (not sync) two lan shared folders I use as my remote data backup holder. My favorite sync tool BeyondCompare, finished in 30 sec and SuperFlexible... in less than 11 sec! File sync was also very fast, much faster than using Windows Explorer or command prompt. In fact it is slightly slower than the fastest sync gun, the command line utility Microsoft RoboCopy from Win2003 SDK. Of course there are still things I didn't like... First is the ...name. I'm sure author could use something shorter than "Super Flexible File Synchronizer". Not big deal though... Second is the user interface. Huge buttons (in Wizard), and non-standard menu and dialog layout just make programs look cheap and amateurish. I rate this "Super Flexible" thing with 5, because it really works fast and reliable. Highly Recommended |
| ssb | Jul 21, 2005 | 2.51 Build 400 Beta 5 | 5 out of 5 |
Great sync tool!!! |
| uberfly | Jul 21, 2005 | 2.51 Build 400 Beta 5 | 5 out of 5 |
thehunger ?? All that just because you love Unison so much? There are TONS of scenarios where someone might want classic right/left synchronization and the convenience of all those 'crazy checkboxes' to configure what they wish to do. Unisom's GTK gui is garbage in comparison and many people don't want to get strung out writing a long sync/scheduling/logging script when they can use a nice tool like this to do it quickly and easily. It really is well written. Efficiency is nice but not always everything to everyone. |
| thehunger | Jul 14, 2005 | 2.51 Build 399 Beta 4 | 2 out of 5 |
Sure it is flexible, but is it efficient? If I change -one- slide in a 50 slide, 8mb PowerPoint presentation, will it copy the entire file or just the changed parts? Super-efficient delta synchronization has been available for years in free, open source software such as Rsync and Unison. This is the umpteenth file sync product I've seen this year and all they do is basic stuff, like options, ftping, maybe a little scheduling. Why do these file sync wannabe authors keep churning out new file sync products that dont do delta sync? I'll tell you why? Because it is a lot more difficult to implement an efficient file synchronization protocol than designing a few dialog boxes with lots of options, and calling a few ftp libraries. However, there is a solution: implement the free, open source protocol of Unison, but combine it with a modern GUI -and- the flexible options. Of course, it would mean they'd have to release the product as open source as well. But that at least has the potential to improve the world a little by providing great software for free. Or they could simply release their collection of dialog boxes with options and calls to ftp libraries as a shareware product. Sorry for the rant, but I really wish someone would improve on Unison's capabilities and not just create inferior products. BTW, Unison is at http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/ it's GUI is bad, there are not that many options, but is cross platform, and super fast and efficient. Try syncing 40gb of data a couple of times and compare the speed to any of the non-free alternatives here. |
| aladdin | May 30, 2005 | 2.50 Build 386 Beta 1 | 5 out of 5 |
Simply the best! No buts, ifs or ands. |
| ghammer | May 25, 2005 | 2.43a Build 385 | 4 out of 5 |
The ability to run as a service is a big plus for me. No need to be logged in, doesn't need the Windows Task Scheduler. A bit of a reach to setup at first, but soon the directory selection and options become more clear. Could use a major facelift though. Simply have to click too many tabs and boxes to get a backup set and scheduled. |