I used and loved Unison for years, but I found myself wanting something that just worked invisibly with no admin effort so I switched to Resilio (Bittorrent Sync). Both work for my purposes. Anyone else try both of these and have feedback?
Unison File Synchronizer
101–102 of 102 posts
Re: Unison File Synchronizer
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem I'm referring to isn't conflict resolution, but rather spurious re-creation of files that have been deleted. Unison's pairwise syncing cannot distinguish a file that has been deleted from one that has yet to be created (whereas say vector clocks do). Create file F on A. Sync A-B, A-C. Delete F on A. Sync A-B. ?????. Sync B-C. Sync A-B. File F now re-exists on A (and B and C). ??? is some event where you c…
> The problem I'm referring to isn't conflict resolution, but rather spurious re-creation of files that have been deleted. That is conflict resolution, over the set of files. Which is why Unison provides the "reconciling changes" UI. > Which implies you need to choose one node from {A,B,C} that is the most likely to be available to sync the other two to. Yes, that is a way to avoid update conflicts. > IMO a topologic…
Eh, we can disagree on a precise definition of abstract "conflict resolution", but I'm referring to unison's behavior with -batch. There's no logical conflict that needs to be resolved by user choice or algorithm. When looking at the larger system of all the replicas, unison's behavior is to simply undelete a file that was explicitly deleted.
> Why? IMAP already takes care of synchronization, without any potential problems.
Less configuration, less attack surface. Sharing mail over NFS is a common thing, and I view unison as a type of distributed filesystem.