Subject: Re: Inquiry re: rsync replacement
To: Jan Schaumann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com>
Date: 04/24/2006 15:15:00
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Jan Schaumann wrote:
>> Is there really any need for yet another NIH software archive
>> synchronisation tool, and if there is, could someone specify /what/
>> needs to be done more efficiently?
> rsync routinely craps out on me if I try to sync directory trees with
> large numbers of entries in a directory (ie tens of thousands of
> subdirectories or files in them).
IIRC the idea behind this 'rsync replacement' was to get a mixture between
SUP(server) and rsync: rsync runs over all the disk and looks what's new,
and doing that for many concurrent clients is thrashing the disk very
much. SUP(server) on the other hand does some periodic scans of "what's
new" (or when it got new), and when a client comes it it already knows
what's new (for the client).
I think the idea was to have some rsync server that does some periodic
scans on the disk (or gets some other ways of being notified for updates),
and then hands out files just like a "normal" rsync server, just without
running all over the disk.
I think tls@ has some more ideas on this one...