Is Second Copy really a better choice than offline files?

Discussion in 'Windows Small Business Server' started by Nick Miro, Apr 10, 2007.

  1. Nick Miro

    Nick Miro Guest

    Config with offline files is ridiculously easy (being there is so little
    control over the process) but it is very frustrating to use. Interestingly,
    between the two, I only ever came close to losing all of a several thousand
    file folder with Second Copy. Soon after, they released the 'preview
    profile' feature.

    Second Copy problem:

    Using Second Copy on a server based network, one still has to synch
    manually or synch by a strict schedule, as opposed to continuous synch with
    offline files. This is a pain in the neck. With offline, as soon as I
    change a file on the network, everyone has instant access. If a network
    connection is lost, all workstations have continuously synchronized offline
    copies.

    If this issue is valid, doesnt' it make offline a better choice, or the
    lesser of two evils?
     
    Nick Miro, Apr 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I prefer SC (or use other sync tools, or a batch file with xcopy/robocopy),
    because although it's a manual/scheduled (as opposed to realtime) sync, if
    there are any problems, your user is far less likely to lose data. Juat my
    $.02. I use it only with laptop users; I don't have any offline/sync'd local
    files on LAN-connected desktops.
     
    Lanwench [MVP - Exchange], Apr 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.