Re: employ rsync per file?

> Well, if you already have rsync, rsh or ssh access to the remote host,
> you can always use rsync.

True, but that wasn't the point Dan was making.

> sitecopy is a great and very, very useful tool, but rsync does its job
> very well too, I really don't see the point of having sitecopy use rsync.

What Dan pointed out was that for rsync to find out whether any updates
are needed at all, it must connect to the remote site first, and compare
directory listings of both sides. Sitecopy can determine whether an
update is needed without having to connect to remote at all. Also,
having a common user interface regardless of which transport mechanism
is used is an advantage.

In all other aspects I'm afraid rsync beats sitecopy hands down. For
example I can update anything, and I don't need to create a
configuration file first, or incremental transfers.

For anyone desperate enough for bandwidth while trying to find out
whether an update is needed, another local copy would do the trick:

  local master ---rsync -n --> local copy
  if local copy needs updating:
  local master ---rsync--> local copy
  local master ---rsync--> remote

Needs more local disk space of course - life's tough ;)

Volker

-- 
Volker Kuhlmann			is list0570 with the domain in header
http://volker.dnsalias.net/	Please do not CC list postings to me.
_______________________________________________
sitecopy maillist  -  [email protected]
http://dav.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/sitecopy