1

I would like some idea about how rsync compares to SyncML/Funambol, especially when it comes to bandwidth, sync over unstable network and multiple clients to one server.

This is to sync several mobile devices with a directory structure of growing text-files. (Se we essentially want as much as possible on the server, and inconsistent files is not really a problem, also we know where changes originates).

So far, it seems Funambol doesn't compress, doesn't handle partial updates, and it is difficult to handle interruptions in a file-transfer.

I know rsync doesn't go through the server, but I don't quite see how that is a disadvantage.

Olav
  • 1,758
  • 4
  • 27
  • 49
  • Why would you want to use SyncML/Funambol for this? AFAIK, it's designed not for arbitrary data, but for contacts, email, etc. – d-_-b Mar 01 '11 at 03:40

1 Answers1

0

Olav,

rsync can:

  • Compress the data (as you said) - thus gaining better performances over the net.
  • Synchronize only the newest data within each file - thus, once again, saving time.
  • Can be ran by multiple users at the same time. It's a very basic backup software behavior.
  • And one of my favorites: work over a secure shell.

You might want to check Rsyncrypto, for compressing and encrypting at the same time.

Dotan

bizna
  • 702
  • 8
  • 23