Hi,
Im using FreeFileSync on ubuntu 12.04 that is conencted to 2 machines both
hosting NFS shares.
The Ubuntu system sits in the middle between them however when you run the
RealTimeSync program, it does not appear to detect changes made to the data as
it happens.
Also, is there any way to speed up the time it takes to scan for data changes
at all as currently it's taking nearly and hour and a half to scan our data
for changes.
RealTimeSync Ubuntu 12.04 NFS Shares
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 29 May 2012
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7211
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
> it does not appear to detect changes made to the data as it happens.
FFS uses inotify
(http://linux.die.net/man/7/inotify)
to watch for changes. It's possible that it doesn't support monitoring on
certain drives. However I would expect an error message in this case. FFS
always propagates all errors that occor.
> speed up the time it takes to scan for data
This is not about RTS, but about FFS comparison speed. The bottleneck in your
scenario is probably the LAN. FFS does little more than opendir/readdir/stat,
not much that could be optimized.
FFS uses inotify
(http://linux.die.net/man/7/inotify)
to watch for changes. It's possible that it doesn't support monitoring on
certain drives. However I would expect an error message in this case. FFS
always propagates all errors that occor.
> speed up the time it takes to scan for data
This is not about RTS, but about FFS comparison speed. The bottleneck in your
scenario is probably the LAN. FFS does little more than opendir/readdir/stat,
not much that could be optimized.
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 29 May 2012
does the inotify use the sync db file to read and check the directories.
I know that the LAN speed between our systems is adequate enough however would
you have any reccomendations when dealing with about 500GB of data?
Currently we have 1GB or RAM assigned to the sync machine would this be
sufficient or would you reccomend more?
I know that the LAN speed between our systems is adequate enough however would
you have any reccomendations when dealing with about 500GB of data?
Currently we have 1GB or RAM assigned to the sync machine would this be
sufficient or would you reccomend more?
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7211
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
500 GB isn't particulary much. But it depends in how many files it is stored.
Roughly FFS requires about 500 bytes per file pair. So you can estimate FFS
memory consumption by "500 bytes" times <number of files on one side>
1 GB RAM for the sync machine seems a little low in general, since the OS
probably consumes half of it. Anyway just monitor memory consumption during
sync. If memory gets low and the OS starts to page out, performance will
naturally go down to a crawl.
Roughly FFS requires about 500 bytes per file pair. So you can estimate FFS
memory consumption by "500 bytes" times <number of files on one side>
1 GB RAM for the sync machine seems a little low in general, since the OS
probably consumes half of it. Anyway just monitor memory consumption during
sync. If memory gets low and the OS starts to page out, performance will
naturally go down to a crawl.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7211
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
> sync db
This file doesn't help us here, it's internal to FFS's automatic sync routine.
Besides we wouldn't want to entirely rely on "inotify" to calculate the
"diff". There is no sustitute to a full directory traversal to get current
data.
This file doesn't help us here, it's internal to FFS's automatic sync routine.
Besides we wouldn't want to entirely rely on "inotify" to calculate the
"diff". There is no sustitute to a full directory traversal to get current
data.
