Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

syncing both ways ? #6

Open
quenenni opened this issue Mar 16, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

syncing both ways ? #6

quenenni opened this issue Mar 16, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@quenenni
Copy link

Hello,

I'm sorry, I've read the doc, but still am unsure if your app is doing that.
Is the synchro both ways?
I have the impression you have a source dir and a dest dir (or backup dir) and the synchro is only in one direction (from what I understood).

I'm looking for an app that keeps a folder on 3 servers synced. Changes can be made on all 3 servers.
Can it do that?

Thanks

@Fitus
Copy link
Owner

Fitus commented Mar 16, 2022

Hi,

the basic functionality is uni-directional, from sourceDir to backupDir.

You can optionally activate REV.NEW and REV.UP:

REV.NEW: If standalone files in backupDir are newer than the last run of Zaloha, and the --revNew option is given, then Zaloha reverse-copies that files to sourceDir.

REV.UP: If files exist under same paths in both sourceDir and backupDir, and the files in backupDir are newer, and the --revUp option is given, then Zaloha uses that files to reverse-update the older files in sourceDir.

Please note that REV.NEW and REV.UP do not constitute a full bi-directional synchronization where sourceDir and backupDir would be equivalent. Especially, there is no REV.REMOVE action. It was a conscious decision to not implement it, as any removals from sourceDir would introduce not acceptable risks.

In other words: A full bi-, tri-, tetra- whatever -directional synchronization would create so many potential conflict cases + risks of wrong overwrites or removals that I consciously did not go for it.

Please leave this issue open, as a kind of public docu.

Best regards, F.

@quenenni
Copy link
Author

Big thanks for the explanations. Very clear.
I will give it a try, it looks like I could try to handle myself the remove part.

Thanks again.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants