I read quite a few results here from a "multiple directory" search, and browsing the last year or so of these forums directly, with nothing I could see as quite the same as this topic, at least not with any real discussion, other than "this is how you do it."
The issue being: I want to synchronize 3 or 4 directories on different systems. They all have certain a certain set of files which might be modified, but never the same files on different systems simultaneously. Basically, these directories could be considered mirrors of each other, with possibility of modification on any node. The synchronization, but the way, happens via LAN.
Now, in FreeFileSync I can do the mirroring by picking one system for an honorary master role, and using it's directory on the left side of multiple pairs, with the remaining systems being on the right side as "slaves." That works, aside from complaints from FFS about the same directory being part of a pair more than once, and having to perform multiple runs of the job to get the changes made on all systems propagated around fully. A file modified on a "slave" system needs to go to the "master" on the first pass before it makes it to the "slaves" in a subsequent pass -- only files modified on the "master" itself get fully distributed in one go.
It seems it might be possible to do it all in one pass by each system being a left side directory as many times as it's on the right side. That would result in 6 directory pairs for 3 systems, 12 for 4, etc. It's such a hairy idea, IMO, I haven't tried it, and as far as I can tell it still wouldn't address...
My main problem is the unnecessary copying/deleting/versioning. What would be best is if the most recent version of a file was copied once to the other systems in a single pass. There is another synchronization program, Allway Sync 'n' Go, which does this, but I vastly prefer FFS for many reasons. I like the interface better, think it's faster and more efficient (aside from this case, of course! ;), and a lot easier to use in most cases.
I know I could sync each system to the others independently, rather than choosing a master, which would eliminate the unneeded copies/etc., and there might even be some advantages to it's distributed nature, but there are also some impracticalities -- increased complexity and fluctuating job configuration (which files to sync) come to mind.
Am I missing some way to do what I want in one pass, from one system, cleanly?
Thanks for developing such excellent software, and being one of the most diligent moderators of a forum I've ever seen.
Multiple-live-mirror sync
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 23 Apr 2007
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7279
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
If you want to conceptually threat all your 4 directories as incarnations of the same single data source, then "mirror" is the wrong variant; this is what "automatic" is for.
However you cannot use the multiple folder pair feature in this case, due to FFS's general concept of first scanning, then synchronizing: syncing a folder pair would have an impact on subsequent folder pairs, which would have had setup sync directions differently, had they known these changes in advance; thous the warning.
Consequently you'll need to use multiple sync configurations, each with a single folder pair and sync variant "automatic". Better yet, if you don't require to check synchronization manually, you can create a batch job (menu->create batch job) for each folder pair. Then to further automate, you could call this list of .ffs_batch files within a single windows batch file (.cmd). Then you'd be able to execute a full n-way sync with a double-click.
However you cannot use the multiple folder pair feature in this case, due to FFS's general concept of first scanning, then synchronizing: syncing a folder pair would have an impact on subsequent folder pairs, which would have had setup sync directions differently, had they known these changes in advance; thous the warning.
Consequently you'll need to use multiple sync configurations, each with a single folder pair and sync variant "automatic". Better yet, if you don't require to check synchronization manually, you can create a batch job (menu->create batch job) for each folder pair. Then to further automate, you could call this list of .ffs_batch files within a single windows batch file (.cmd). Then you'd be able to execute a full n-way sync with a double-click.
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Sorry about the confusion regarding terminology. Yes, automatic synchronization is what I was using.
Your solution is very similar to the one in my last full paragraph: individual sync jobs for each system -- each folder pair for that matter -- but running them all from one system. It is more manageable, yes, but wouldn't it be ideal if a single job scanned all the directories and made synchronization decisions based on the full picture? I understand that this would require some changes in the user interface for that mode, (and no doubt tons of work,) but I have some ideas if you're interested. A big benefit would be an overall view of everything.
In any case, thanks for the response. I'm considering bludgeoning my control-freak nature into submission, and running automatic sync jobs from each system.
Your solution is very similar to the one in my last full paragraph: individual sync jobs for each system -- each folder pair for that matter -- but running them all from one system. It is more manageable, yes, but wouldn't it be ideal if a single job scanned all the directories and made synchronization decisions based on the full picture? I understand that this would require some changes in the user interface for that mode, (and no doubt tons of work,) but I have some ideas if you're interested. A big benefit would be an overall view of everything.
In any case, thanks for the response. I'm considering bludgeoning my control-freak nature into submission, and running automatic sync jobs from each system.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7279
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
>but wouldn't it be ideal if a single job scanned all the directories and made synchronization decisions based on the full picture
Sure, from a user's perspective. But I have doubts this is possible without herculean efforts, if at all. First one would need a reliable way to detect dependencies between folder pairs. Often this is not technically possible. Even if it is, there are logical problems with the FFS approach of first comparing, then setting sync directions. With the current two-step model, it's not possible.
Sure, from a user's perspective. But I have doubts this is possible without herculean efforts, if at all. First one would need a reliable way to detect dependencies between folder pairs. Often this is not technically possible. Even if it is, there are logical problems with the FFS approach of first comparing, then setting sync directions. With the current two-step model, it's not possible.
