Hi,
Is it possible to upload locally updated files to remote ftp server without scanning remote ftp server?
I work on html sides locally and then want to upload the changed files to webserver through ftp. But if I scan remotely, it takes too long.
If this is possible, can someone please give me a pointer how?
Thank You.
Allen
Upload updated files to ftp server without scanning remote ftp server
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 10 Apr 2024
-
- Posts: 4034
- Joined: 11 Jun 2019
You have to scan remote files to determine what has been changed. There may be a tool out there that simply overwrites everything no matter what, but FFS isn't it
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: 8 May 2006
If no checking needs to be done on the remote end, why not upload to an empty temporary directory on the remote?
There will be nothing to check against, so no scanning to be done (on the remote).
Now, you'd have to know what on the source end has changed, & only upload those.
After the files are in the temporary directory, you can move them to where, & as you want on the ftp.
That temporary directory is then empty, so the next time you go to do it...
There will be nothing to check against, so no scanning to be done (on the remote).
Now, you'd have to know what on the source end has changed, & only upload those.
After the files are in the temporary directory, you can move them to where, & as you want on the ftp.
That temporary directory is then empty, so the next time you go to do it...
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 10 Apr 2024
Thank for sCSxXenon and therube, I am thinking about comparing something locally on what is changed and then only upload those files. Programs I have used in the past include updating a shadow directory with full directory structure and 0 bite files and updating and uploading only those files with newer timestamps - or some sort of local marking (archive attribute, or some local database) to keep track which files have been changed. The idea is the comparison when done locally is super fast.
I guess for freefilesync this is not an easily accessible use case...?
I guess for freefilesync this is not an easily accessible use case...?
-
- Posts: 2438
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
> I guess for freefilesync this is not an easily accessible use case...?
Functionally, your use-case seems to be something like a Fast version of the FFS Update sync variant, when using the databases (Use databasefiles to detect changes) option.
When using the database option, FFS compares the present file-"status" of the left-side location(s) with the left-side file-"status" at the end of the previous sync, as stored in the left-side database file(s).
Thus, FFS is able to determine the changes that have occurred on the left side(s) since the last sync.
Similarly FFS compares the present file-"status" of the right-side location(s) with the right-side file-"status" at the end of the previous sync, as stored in the right-side database file(s).
Thus, FFS is able to determine the changes that have occurred on the right side(s) since the last sync.
FFS then considers the combined left- and right-side changes to determine the (proposed) sync actions (or concludes a conflict) based on the selected sync variant (Two-way, Mirror, Update).
It seems relatively straight-forward to me (sorry Zenju, I am not the one who would need to implement it ... ;-) ) to create a Fast mode-option, at least for the Mirror and Update variant, in which it is simply assumed there are no right-side changes, thereby avoiding the need to read the present right-side status.
This may then result in a Fast Update variant that simply would copy left-to-right any new and updated
left-side files, and a Fast Mirror variant that would additionally also (try to) delete right-side files of which the left-side was deleted.
This could be implemented as two additional variants or as an option available to the Mirror and Update variant.
Such Fast variant or option can potentially be much faster, particularly when a slow, remote right-side location is involved. Conversely, it will be slightly more risky, because the user would now even more rely on the right-side files not having inadvertently changed in any form in between many syncs and over (potentially extensive) time.
We have to leave it up to Zenju to consider if he/she (?) wants to go in the direction as suggested.
Adding options and features always increases the complexity for users and thus the risk of making mistakes or choices with potentially severe impact.
Functionally, your use-case seems to be something like a Fast version of the FFS Update sync variant, when using the databases (Use databasefiles to detect changes) option.
When using the database option, FFS compares the present file-"status" of the left-side location(s) with the left-side file-"status" at the end of the previous sync, as stored in the left-side database file(s).
Thus, FFS is able to determine the changes that have occurred on the left side(s) since the last sync.
Similarly FFS compares the present file-"status" of the right-side location(s) with the right-side file-"status" at the end of the previous sync, as stored in the right-side database file(s).
Thus, FFS is able to determine the changes that have occurred on the right side(s) since the last sync.
FFS then considers the combined left- and right-side changes to determine the (proposed) sync actions (or concludes a conflict) based on the selected sync variant (Two-way, Mirror, Update).
It seems relatively straight-forward to me (sorry Zenju, I am not the one who would need to implement it ... ;-) ) to create a Fast mode-option, at least for the Mirror and Update variant, in which it is simply assumed there are no right-side changes, thereby avoiding the need to read the present right-side status.
This may then result in a Fast Update variant that simply would copy left-to-right any new and updated
left-side files, and a Fast Mirror variant that would additionally also (try to) delete right-side files of which the left-side was deleted.
This could be implemented as two additional variants or as an option available to the Mirror and Update variant.
Such Fast variant or option can potentially be much faster, particularly when a slow, remote right-side location is involved. Conversely, it will be slightly more risky, because the user would now even more rely on the right-side files not having inadvertently changed in any form in between many syncs and over (potentially extensive) time.
We have to leave it up to Zenju to consider if he/she (?) wants to go in the direction as suggested.
Adding options and features always increases the complexity for users and thus the risk of making mistakes or choices with potentially severe impact.
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 24 Mar 2024
Hi,
Is it possible to upload locally updated files to remote ftp server without scanning remote ftp server?
I work on html sides locally and then want to upload the changed files to webserver through ftp. But if I scan remotely, it takes too long.
If this is possible, can someone please give me a pointer how?
Thank You.
Allen kailangyu, 10 Apr 2024, 20:01
I maintain a web server and I use a program called filezilla to upload new and changed files to the server and there is no need to scan all of the files that are on the server each time. Perhaps this is a solution that will work for you as well.
-
- Posts: 2438
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
> ... I use a program called filezilla to upload new and changed files to the server ...
Essentially every file-transfer tool is able to do the uploading part for you.
I am not familiar with Filezilla, but is Filezilla also able to
• detect which client-side files are new or changed since the last "sync"
and then
• upload those files maintaining their existing folder structure
?
Essentially every file-transfer tool is able to do the uploading part for you.
I am not familiar with Filezilla, but is Filezilla also able to
• detect which client-side files are new or changed since the last "sync"
and then
• upload those files maintaining their existing folder structure
?
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 10 Apr 2024
Greg12, Plerry,
I use filezilla (though no expert), but to my knowledge, it doesn't keep track of changed files. I would have to keep track of the changed files manually (myself). Or just reupload everything - which would take even longer than the file comparison of freefilesync (I'm actually amazed at the speed of the comparisons; never seen other programs do local and remote comparisons so quickly and accurately!).
The only other programs I know that does what I describe above well is synchronex from xellsoft and ftp synchronizer. Program is: I keep getting error in Synchronex when using ftp with tls (encryption). As for ftp synchronizer, they kind of left a bad taste in my mouth when I had to reinstall (due to a computer issue) and found I could not resinstall because they do not keep or give out copies of old versions - so I am forced to buy a new version.
Anyways, free file sync has got a great workflow and user interface. The program as is technically can be used for my case, but it's too slow... Sometimes I make a change, update, make another little change, update, etc. If I have to wait 20-30 seconds between updates and little changes, it drags out the whole process untolerably too long.
Thanks for all the responses so far. I will keep an eye on this forum and future directions. Maybe this feature can be implemented. I feel it's an important use case...
Allen
I use filezilla (though no expert), but to my knowledge, it doesn't keep track of changed files. I would have to keep track of the changed files manually (myself). Or just reupload everything - which would take even longer than the file comparison of freefilesync (I'm actually amazed at the speed of the comparisons; never seen other programs do local and remote comparisons so quickly and accurately!).
The only other programs I know that does what I describe above well is synchronex from xellsoft and ftp synchronizer. Program is: I keep getting error in Synchronex when using ftp with tls (encryption). As for ftp synchronizer, they kind of left a bad taste in my mouth when I had to reinstall (due to a computer issue) and found I could not resinstall because they do not keep or give out copies of old versions - so I am forced to buy a new version.
Anyways, free file sync has got a great workflow and user interface. The program as is technically can be used for my case, but it's too slow... Sometimes I make a change, update, make another little change, update, etc. If I have to wait 20-30 seconds between updates and little changes, it drags out the whole process untolerably too long.
Thanks for all the responses so far. I will keep an eye on this forum and future directions. Maybe this feature can be implemented. I feel it's an important use case...
Allen
-
- Posts: 2438
- Joined: 22 Aug 2012
> If I have to wait 20-30 seconds between updates and little changes ...
Why would you need to wait, what would you be waiting for?
You can add files or make changes to files in folders that are in scope of an ongoing FFS sync.
At worst, such additions and/or changes are missed/skipped by the ongoing sync, but will then simply be synced during the next sync you run.
Why would you need to wait, what would you be waiting for?
You can add files or make changes to files in folders that are in scope of an ongoing FFS sync.
At worst, such additions and/or changes are missed/skipped by the ongoing sync, but will then simply be synced during the next sync you run.
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 24 Mar 2024
Well, I don't modify a lot of files at one time and I sort them by date with the most recently modified files at the top. If you select all files then copy or as they say upload or download then it will compare the source file to the destination file and only upload files that are modified newer than the file that exists on the remote.
I usually only modify four or five files and they float to the top of the directory list and then I just drag them to the server or drag them down from the server whichever is necessary.
I have about 7 GB of files that total thousands in the total number of files and it takes less than 5 minutes to scan all of the files and only upload the ones that have been modified. It is a program that has been around for 20 years or so. It's open source and supports both FTP and SFTP. It doesn't use terminology like mirror or sink or one way two-way it's either uploading a file or downloading a file and used quite commonly for maintaining websites.
I usually only modify four or five files and they float to the top of the directory list and then I just drag them to the server or drag them down from the server whichever is necessary.
I have about 7 GB of files that total thousands in the total number of files and it takes less than 5 minutes to scan all of the files and only upload the ones that have been modified. It is a program that has been around for 20 years or so. It's open source and supports both FTP and SFTP. It doesn't use terminology like mirror or sink or one way two-way it's either uploading a file or downloading a file and used quite commonly for maintaining websites.
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 13 Apr 2017
Hi Allen,
you can download various old versions of FTP Synchronizer from those links.
Here you can find version 7.0.15.115
https://download.cnet.com/ftp-synchronizer/3000-2160_4-10488450.html
Here you can find the following versions:
8.0 6.3.15 6.2.8 5.0
https://ftp-synchronizer.software.informer.com/download/
Here you can find the following versions:
8.1 8.0 6.2 5.0 3.5
https://ftp-synchronizer.software.informer.com/versions/
HTH,
Gianni
you can download various old versions of FTP Synchronizer from those links.
Here you can find version 7.0.15.115
https://download.cnet.com/ftp-synchronizer/3000-2160_4-10488450.html
Here you can find the following versions:
8.0 6.3.15 6.2.8 5.0
https://ftp-synchronizer.software.informer.com/download/
Here you can find the following versions:
8.1 8.0 6.2 5.0 3.5
https://ftp-synchronizer.software.informer.com/versions/
HTH,
Gianni
