Menu
▾
▴
#20 differents timestamps in 2-way sync
i use a 2-way sync from (source) a NT ftp server to
(destination) my harddisk.
i update a file on my harddisk then i synchronize with
the ftp server => upload of the file to the server
(ok). but the file on the ftp server has a different
timestamp : later than the modification timestamp of my
local file. so the next time i synchronize, fullsync
wants to download the server file to the local file,
even if the file hasn't been updated since the first sync.
Logged In: YES
user_id=108033
yes, this is "correct" this way. the problem with ftp is,
that it does not support setting timestamps (normally). this
is why the sync method "publish/update" uses "buffering"
which means it stores the correct modified date in another
file and so on. currently this isn't really available for
two-way-sync. so, either you try connecting vie smb, use
publish/update (but this may not do the things you want) or
wait till i write some two-way-sync method which works with
buffering.
Logged In: YES
user_id=1366534
Hello There...
First of all I want to thank the Fullsync Team for this peace of
software. I was searching a long time before I found Fullsync,
which solves a lot of problems I had until now ;-)
BUT:
I understand the problem of the first poster. I also understand
the "solving concept" that "codewright" is planing on it, but I
think that is not the right way to do it. Putting aditional files in
the synchronised direktory is aceptable if all users are
working with Fullsync. But if only one user uses a different
app, the synchronising will not work (at least I think so).
I also think that FTP Servers (maybe not all but the most of
them) ARE able to replace the timestamp, because
FILEZILLA performs it that way. So please, integrate the "
copy timestamp" feature, and do not trust in "buffering".
Cincerely, Claus
Logged In: YES
user_id=108033
You are right, colebantam. of course it is better to write
the correct timestamp, but, as already mentioned an (to me)
unknown number of ftp servers do not support it. i'm
currently trying to switch the file system access stuff to
another lib, which will be able to tell whether the remote
server/file system is able to set the date or not. this way
i can turn on buffering when it is needed. the only problem
is: 1) the lib needs a few more things before i can use it
and 2) i magically don't find much time for FS at the moment.
Logged In: YES
user_id=1366534
I think an automatic decision (server is able to set timestamp or
not) is not sooooo important. A simple chekbox where the user
can select if the server is able to write timestamp, should be fine.
Should be much simpler to integrate, than the automatic
procedure, as I fully understand your "magically problem" of
having too less sparetime ;-)