developer toolbox

When not to use:¶

• File with active file handles (e.g. database files) Directories where many changes occur (like mail or news servers)

In these cases e.g. DRBD (see http://www.linux-ha.org/DRBD) might be better for you.

Comparisons:¶

• Lsyncd vs. DRBD: DRBD operates on block device level. This makes it useful for synchronizing systems that are under heavy load. Lsyncd on the other hand does not require you to change block devices and/or mount points, allows you to change uid/gid of the transferred files, separates the receiver through the one-way nature of rsync. However when using lsyncd a file change can possibly result in a full file transfer (at least for binary files) and is therefore unsuitable for databases. Also a directory rename will result in transferring the whole directory.
• Lsyncd vs. incron: Incron does not (yet) support recursive directory watching making it unsuitable for described needs (http://inotify.aiken.cz/?section=incron&page=about&lang=en). In fact a different approach would have been to extent incron. However, we decided to stick to the NIH principle (Not Invented Here) :-), because extending the C++ solution seemed to tedious.
• Lsyncd vs. FUSE: Another interesting idea is to write a daemon that provides a shadow file system through fuse. When accessing a file the data is synced to a local file as well as a remote file. With this approach inotify could be replaced. BindFS (see http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/partel/bindfs/) does this for local mirroring. We discarded this idea because it would affect performance of normal operations in a negative way.
• Lsyncd vs. cron: If you find a solution using cron to call rsync over the whole directory tree periodically after every 'X' hours/minutes/seconds more satisfying than lsyncd, please go for it ''sulking''. We don't like it!

ovo bi moglo biti skroz jednostavno a kvalitetno rješenje za redmine na više hostova (sinhronizacija file repozitorija)