Yves Dorfsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >>> >>> http://code.google.com/p/lsyncd/ >> >> Yup, that one fits the description. It looks really cool! :-) > > Hmmm... rsync is so efficient that I have to wonder what kind of > extreme case would make this attractive.
Anything where the cost in memory, IOPS or other resources was undesirable? Seriously, rsync has some small scaling issues, even if the rsync 3 release helps with some. [...] >> I'm not trying to solve any particular problem specifically. This is >> really for the sake of discussion and understanding of what new >> technologies are out there, for possible future use. > > One thin I am playing with is disconnected filesystem, and right now > nothing beats rsync... The revolution of lowered expectations wins again. ;) [...] > My intention is to write a fuse module to keep track of deletes and > apply them automatically. You might find it more useful to consider GLusterFS, implemented with FUSE, which already does what you are talking out: http://www.gluster.org/ > I have also been thinking of using git, but that would be quite > involved (every machine is a branch, give the user the possibility to > merge the branch at a latter time). That would require some significant changes to git to allow pruning revisions out of the history, or manual commits, either of which has some nasty failure modes, I would have thought. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
