Synchronize Imatch over two PCs

[WebEngel]

Hello,

I have two machines: One Desktop PC (main machine) and one Laptop.  The laptop has not enough space to hold all of my images in full resolution and even not all JPG files.

On the laptop, I just view images, rate them and enter metadata for descriptions.  On the desktop, I do all activities, including Raw conversion.

Somtimes, I have the newest images in full resolution on both machines, sometimes only on the desktop.  This is mainly to rate sharpness when I am on the road.  For older files, I would like to have only screen resolution on the laptop to save space.  Of course I would like to make sure that I can view all files on the laptop.

This brings two synchronization tasks:
1) Make sure all images are available on the laptop in screen resolution
2) Syncronize Imatch (DB and settings such as metadata panel, export settings, metadata templates)

I would like to hear your feedback on how to perform the activities.

For (1), I have two options: Use scripts to resize the images or to use the Imatch cache and do not hold any image files at all on the laptop.  What would you recommend?  Using the cache seems much simpler.  However, I would of course prefer to use the laptop's native resolution on the laptop for the size of the cached image, and that would then determine also the size on the desktop machine.

For (2), I could use Pack&Go or robocopy scripts.  Robocopy would consume less time in the long run of course, as this would only require to run a script and not do a long export and import on both machines.  What do you recommend?  For Robocopy, which are the folders to copy (e.g., C:\ProgramData\photools.com\IMatch5)

Any feedback is highly appreciated.

Martin

[Mario]

I suggest the topic Traveling with IMatch in the help file which should give you some good input on how to use IMatch on multiple computers or while on the road.

[WebEngel]

Thanks for the info.  I missed this chapter.  This is very good documentation!!

However, I still struggle with one thing:

My requirements are:
The laptop does not need 100% images
No machine needs to cache Raw files (the raw is a buddy for the master Jpg, so there is no Raw without a Jpg)
The desktop needs to be able to do 100% dive -- for recent folders instantly, for older folders possibly with delay.

This does not seem possible at present.  If I set the cache to say 1500x1000 resolution, everything is fine for the laptop, but 100% is no longer possible on the desktop.  If I set the cache to 100%, all of my image data is stored on the laptop.

What is the efficiency of the cache?  Say the master JPG image is 24 MP and 5 MB.  How much would the cache consume for this file at resolution 100% and say quality of 60%?  The question is: Should I keep my entire DB at setting "cache JPG at 100%"?

What is interesting: Everything was fine on my PC when I did not cache JPGs at all.  100% dive was possible.  Now that I create a cache (mainly for the laptop) with lower resolution, 100% is no longer possible.

May I suggest the following feature:
One configuration flag for the viewer:
Use only cache, if available: this is the current behavior
Use image file, if available: The viewer then loads the image file even if there is a cache.  The cache is only used when the image file is not available.

Should I post this in the feature request folder?

Martin

[Mario]

All viewing modules in IMatch work "through" the cache. Using a cache at 100% size is highly recommended, the default and should be changed only for very specific reasons. The cache speeds up IMatch enormously when working with RAW files or other file formats.

Why don't you set the cache to on-demand. IMatch then creates cache files on the desktop on the laptop when needed...

[WebEngel]

I understand this.  The specific reason in my case is that the laptop does not have an HDD that would fit all of my pictures.  My Database holds 150 GB of JPG files alone.  Most of these files are already exported at quality 80% from Lightroom, so I doubt the Imatch cache would use much less space at 100% resolution.

I am not "working" with Raw files in Imatch (except for Renaming and a couple of other activities).  For Raw files, Imatch seems to cache the tiny embedded preview which is fine for me.

"On demand" would not work in my scenario.  The laptop does not hold the image files, so it cannot generate the cache.  The scenario is: I am traveling and suddenly want to view images from my vacation two years ago.  To support this, the cache needs to exist on the laptop when I leave home.

So again, the switch that I suggested as a new feature would help me a lot.

Martin

[Mario]

The scenario is: I am traveling and suddenly want to view images from my vacation two years ago. 

Naturally, IMatch cannot handle every possible scenario in this context.

a) You don't have the images on the laptop
b) You don't have the cache on the laptop
c) You probably don't know in advance which cache images you will need on the laptop, or else you could copy them.
d) Or copy the cache images.
e) Since you work with JPEG, and IMatch does not cache JPEG files (no win there), you would have to copy the original files anyway.

Setting up per-computer / per-database cache settings and then doing all the internal jingle-jangle to manage this would of course be possible. But how many users would benefit from that? You would. And probably some other users as well. My guess is, that this is a problem for only a few. So I will not consider this unless I get a larger number of requests.

Since you added this in the Tips & Tricks forum (which is for giving users tips about how to use IMatch, not for asking questions). I'll move this entire thread into the feature request board for later consideration.

[AnaDia]

I don't know, how many images you have and how much space you have on your notebook. But did you try to cache the whole database on your desktop to see how much space the cache will need?
My database holds 87.000 files (most raws) with 1,2 TB. I have a full cached DB including JPGs and the size of the cache is 60 GB. So I have no problem to have a complete cache on my laptop for viewing older files during travelling.
I normally work on my desktop, so I start to syncronize the Cache and the database file to the laptop. This needs much less time after the initial sync than to copy the whole cache every time before a journey.

[Richard]

My Database holds 150 GB of JPG files alone.

In your situation I would spend $80 for a 128 GB USB 3 Flash Drive, put my database on it and as many image files as possible. Then put the rest of the image files on the internal drives. If you do not have USB 3 you can get USB 2 for $45. Cheaper but slower.
See http://www.walmart.com/ip/PNY-128GB-USB-Turbo-3.0-Flash-Drive/33563939 for prices and data.

[WebEngel]

But did you try to cache the whole database on your desktop to see how much space the cache will need?
My database holds 87.000 files (most raws) with 1,2 TB. I have a full cached DB including JPGs and the size of the cache is 60 GB. So I have no problem to have a complete cache on my laptop for viewing older files during travelling.

I was away on vacation, that's why I answer with delay.

So you report that the cache uses 5% of the space of the image files, but you have mainly raws where you save a lot of space.

I have
365G Raw
155G Jpg

Building a 100% cache for the Jpgs will -- like Mario said ("no win there") -- not consume much less space than the Jpg files directly.  I just tested this on a folder:

For Jpg files ooc, the cache consumes 27% of the jpg files' space.  For Jpg files exported from LR (I use 80% quality), the cache consumes 39% of the Jpg files' space.

So in total, I will use 50 -- 80 GB on my Laptop.  This is a bit more than what I wanted to spend, as the laptop only has a SSD and no magnetic disk.  As soon as my DB grows, I may run into space problems again.

So I would stil prefer the switch that I mentioned.

[Mario]

Caching JPEG files makes no sense because IMatch cache files are JPEG files. Unless you use cache image sizes y 100% there is no gain.
A 64 GB USB 3.0 stick sells currently for less than 30€ and a 128 GB stick for about 60 €. That's the way I would go for mass storage for your laptop. Cheap and fast.

[Erik]

So in total, I will use 50 -- 80 GB on my Laptop.  This is a bit more than what I wanted to spend, as the laptop only has a SSD and no magnetic disk.  As soon as my DB grows, I may run into space problems again.

So I would stil prefer the switch that I mentioned.

Besides the feature, which would obviously not come quickly if it were implemented, why not just utilize a thumb drive as initially suggested or an SD or CF card, assuming you might have one of those that can hold 128 GB and thus your whole cache and DB.  I think that is possible and reasonable as a traveling solution.  IM will think the files are off-line or mislocated, but it will still function with the DB.  This is essentially what you are looking for albeit without a button; you may have to rely on the buttoms from a good file sync program outside of IM.  I suppose the only think you wouldn't have directly and easily are the settings, but I think those can be backed up relatively easily too.  You might even be able to write a script to do what you want.