Re:Asynchronous filesystem replication with FUSE and rsync
by mindslight on Thursday December 11, 2014 @01:28PM
(#8736291)
Unison works great on my >2TB collection. Granted, most files are static and my update bandwidth is a tiny fraction of that, doable over DSL.
The only real issues I've found with unison are:
Works exclusively in terms of replica pairs. Still, I'd rather have a limited solid tool instead of a flaky perfect one.
Lack of inotify support (hacky half/embedded python stuff after the original author lost interest doesn't count).
3x disk access time for copying new files (hash source, transfer, hash dest). This could be reduced to 2x for similar consistency guarantees, but is really only an issue when creating new replicas, and can be fixed by copying the data first.
And for use as a 'filesystem', having to come up with file organization / wrapper scripts to choose what is replicated where, while still being sure what is a "full replica".
The only real issues I've found with unison are:
Works exclusively in terms of replica pairs. Still, I'd rather have a limited solid tool instead of a flaky perfect one.
Lack of inotify support (hacky half/embedded python stuff after the original author lost interest doesn't count).
3x disk access time for copying new files (hash source, transfer, hash dest). This could be reduced to 2x for similar consistency guarantees, but is really only an issue when creating new replicas, and can be fixed by copying the data first.
And for use as a 'filesystem', having to come up with file organization / wrapper scripts to choose what is replicated where, while still being sure what is a "full replica".