On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:29:19AM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
On 6 April 2016 at 10:32, Chris Green cl@isbd.net wrote:
On my data, if nothing much has changed, rsync takes between 10 and 20 seconds.
I'd say that's quite a long time for "do nothing", and whilst still not excessive I'd be surprised if any of the alternative solutions were worse as that should really be a worst case.
For small text files I'd also consider git/svn/etc
You can't hook that into a source code control system can you?
I'm sure it can be done, even if only via an hourly automated update/commit.
It would be difficult though, it doesn't just have to cope with file updates (that's simple with rsync anyway), it has to manage file additions and deletions (the bit that's difficult with rsync).
The disadvantage is that as a version control system you'll be keeping a copy of all previous versions at each point as well. The advantage is exactly the same: you'll have a version history if you want to roll back a change at some point.
Dokuwiki keeps a history anyway so more would be overkill though it wouldn't actually matter, space isn't an issue.
For your use case as described I'd still be edging towards bysync though, or a recommendation to use syncthing if you can get it to work properly as it's open source.
Yes, I think you're right. I'll take a look at syncthing because not only is it open source but it has a proper Ubuntu/Debian PPA that I can hook into so I don't have to think (too much) about keeping things up to date. If at all possible I use software with a PPA so that all I have to do is run 'apt-get update;apt-get upgrade" every so often. (Or on my desktop and laptop it asks me politely of course, even better!)