In regards to Real Time Sync. Is it it better to have one listener for a big root folder. Or multiple listeners for each medium folder within the main root folder.
Context:
I want to set up a listener for a whole drive. This is a big drive. Maybe 6 TB with 2 million files.
Is one listener better (On root), or multiple listeners (for each folder in root - There are 6)
Also if multiple listeners are better, is there a limit to how many? What If I split up the biggest folder into 6 more listeners, so there are 12 listeners in total, each with a somewhat equal portion of the original 6 TB with 2 million files. ?
Real Time Sync Setup Efficiency
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 19 Jan 2024
-
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
It is never wise to define the scope of what is being monitored for changes wider than what potentially needs to be synced.
ANY change in the entire scope of an RTS (RealTimeSync) instance will cause RTS to launch its command line, normally invoking a specified FFS sync.
Conversely, ANY further changes within the RTS instance monitored folder that occur within the RTS Idle Time will cause RTS to postpone RTS to launch its command line by a renewed Idle Time. On busy folders (incl their subfolders) this may cause postponing launching the RTS command line indefinitely.
It is therefore generally better to chop-up big drives in separate, more manageable chunks as far as monitoring by RTS is concerned, and obviously also define matching FFS sync configurations as being launched by the individual RTS instances.
ANY change in the entire scope of an RTS (RealTimeSync) instance will cause RTS to launch its command line, normally invoking a specified FFS sync.
Conversely, ANY further changes within the RTS instance monitored folder that occur within the RTS Idle Time will cause RTS to postpone RTS to launch its command line by a renewed Idle Time. On busy folders (incl their subfolders) this may cause postponing launching the RTS command line indefinitely.
It is therefore generally better to chop-up big drives in separate, more manageable chunks as far as monitoring by RTS is concerned, and obviously also define matching FFS sync configurations as being launched by the individual RTS instances.
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 19 Jan 2024
So there is no issue with having ~20 RTS instances for a single drive? Seems like it would be a good idea for me to have some specifically for my most used folders and then group up the remainder
I guess I'm just wondering if there is any performance considerations when adding many RTS instances that are listening to specific folders for changes
I guess I'm just wondering if there is any performance considerations when adding many RTS instances that are listening to specific folders for changes
-
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
> I guess I'm just wondering ...
Can't tell.
An open door:
Just make sure there is no overlap between the folders (and their subfolders) monitored by the individual RTS instances.
Can't tell.
An open door:
Just make sure there is no overlap between the folders (and their subfolders) monitored by the individual RTS instances.
-
- Posts: 3609
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
You would need an absurd amount of RTS sessions to notice any issues, run as many as you want essentially. For me, a single RTS setup is 8-30MB RAM each with basically negligent CPU usage. ~20 sessions may be upwards of 500MB of RAM, so make sure you have enough leeway for that, but should be fine
