Running two Sync services on one folder (ftp)
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:17 am
Dear Support,
I have a rather large folder and file structure to sync one way from a read/write server to a read only server. This has been setup and functioning correctly using BestSync ftp in one way mirror mode.
My issue was that with the large directory structure at idle the sync consumes 4.2GB of data a month simply with checking the directory structure on the remote (ftp) server. As such I have ticked "only scan source folder to detect..." which is working well.
My current concern is that if a file or folder is deleted on the remote computer the file will never synced back from the source server. My solution to this is to have a second service running 2 or 3 times a week to perform a complete mirror sync with scan remote computer in addition to the original "real time' sync.
Tests seem to indicate that everything is working fine, but before I apply this solution to the live server with a much larger data structure I would like some confirmation
My questions are twofold:
1. Would there be any issue with running two separate syncs on the same folder structure as described above
2. Would there be a better solution that still provides low amount of idle data?
Many thanks
I have a rather large folder and file structure to sync one way from a read/write server to a read only server. This has been setup and functioning correctly using BestSync ftp in one way mirror mode.
My issue was that with the large directory structure at idle the sync consumes 4.2GB of data a month simply with checking the directory structure on the remote (ftp) server. As such I have ticked "only scan source folder to detect..." which is working well.
My current concern is that if a file or folder is deleted on the remote computer the file will never synced back from the source server. My solution to this is to have a second service running 2 or 3 times a week to perform a complete mirror sync with scan remote computer in addition to the original "real time' sync.
Tests seem to indicate that everything is working fine, but before I apply this solution to the live server with a much larger data structure I would like some confirmation
My questions are twofold:
1. Would there be any issue with running two separate syncs on the same folder structure as described above
2. Would there be a better solution that still provides low amount of idle data?
Many thanks