Hello,
I would like to return to the issue of verification of copy, and cache, of which we wrote here:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8369
To sum up, a copy corruption could not get detected by SyncBack, if SyncBack reads the copied file from cache, and later the corruption happens when writing the cache to disk.
Do you have some suggestions on how to judge if the copy verification will be effective?
In which cases will copy verification always work, or conversely, in which cases will it surely not work?
For example, what happens if a file is bigger than the available RAM? Or what happens if the file is smaller than the hard disk's built-in cache?
Just to have an idea of what to expect while doing backups with verification turned on.
Thanks.
I would like to return to the issue of verification of copy, and cache, of which we wrote here:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=8369
To sum up, a copy corruption could not get detected by SyncBack, if SyncBack reads the copied file from cache, and later the corruption happens when writing the cache to disk.
Do you have some suggestions on how to judge if the copy verification will be effective?
In which cases will copy verification always work, or conversely, in which cases will it surely not work?
For example, what happens if a file is bigger than the available RAM? Or what happens if the file is smaller than the hard disk's built-in cache?
Just to have an idea of what to expect while doing backups with verification turned on.
Thanks.