0 کاربر و 4 مهمان درحال مشاهده موضوع.
csync /home/csync sftp://csync@krikkit.galaxy.site:2222/home/csync
معمولاً برای این کارها از rsync استفاده میشه. من csync رو ندیدم، ولی با rsync هیچوقت مشکلی نداشتم.
Why you don’t just use rsync ?This could be a common question, rsync is a good tool and i think that every linux administrator sooner or later has used it, and so you could think that this is enough to handle the sync between filesystems.So let’s say that you have just 3 servers that must have the filesystem /www/ in sync between them, the webserver of each of these 3 nodes can write there and so you don’t have a master server.You could run a rsync cron job on every server that syncs the local content with the other 2 nodes, but there are some problems in this setup this create quite some traffic, and will keep the nodes rather busy as well. After all, rsync checks if every file exists on the node, compares the contents, size or last modification date and builds a list of files to be transferred based on that. And every time it needs to connect to each nodes. This is fine for occasional updates, less fine for more regular ones, or if you have a large number of files.Csync2 keeps a little database (sqlite as default) which contains the state of each file. This means that whenever it gets invoked, it first updates the database – and only starts to connect to the nodes in case any files were added, modified or deleted. A massive win in the number of connections it needs to make to the nodes, as most of the time there won’t be any new files. And It’s also a lot faster in checking than a Rsync.Naturally the more nodes you have the more gains you’ll have in using csync2.
دقیقاچهدستوریمیزنی؟بهطورخلاصه:کد: [انتخاب]csync /home/csync sftp://csync@krikkit.galaxy.site:2222/home/csync
scp و rsync رو پیشنهاد میدم.