Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I have recently adopted the use of rclone on our servers to sync/backup to my company's data with their google drive.
This is working well and I've done an initial sync from the offsite backup server to the google drive (it's in a location which has a much better upload speed than the office).
I initially used the copy command but then changed to the sync command, just so that everything was in line with our existing company folder structure.
The only difference I can see in this is that a copy command doesn't delete anything from the destination if it doesn't exist on the source, whereas the sync command does (so that it's an exact replica of the source).
On running sync a second time, it runs through each folder to check its compatibility with the source and it takes ages! (our main folder is about 230 GB in size)
So, my question...
I'm wondering if any of you use rclone and if you use the copy command or the sync command? And my following question would be - what were your reasons?
MD5/SHA1 hashes checked at all times for file integrity
Timestamps preserved on files
Partial syncs supported on a whole file basis
Copy mode to just copy new/changed filesSync (one way) mode to make a directory identical Check mode to check for file hash equality
Can sync to and from network, eg two different cloud accounts
Optional encryption (Crypt)
Optional FUSE mount (rclone mount)
Copy looks like it would just copy changed files only, therefore taking less time. Whereas, Sync maybe coping over every single file no matter what, therefore taking more time. Therefore, I think the theory would be. To Sync it on first run to get a clone of it, then use copy thereafter. and check when needed.
MD5/SHA1 hashes checked at all times for file integrity
Timestamps preserved on files
Partial syncs supported on a whole file basis
Copy mode to just copy new/changed filesSync (one way) mode to make a directory identical Check mode to check for file hash equality
Can sync to and from network, eg two different cloud accounts
Optional encryption (Crypt)
Optional FUSE mount (rclone mount)
Copy looks like it would just copy changed files only, therefore taking less time. whereas, Sync maybe coping over every single file no matter what, therefore taking more time. Therefore, I think the theory would be. To Sync it on first run to get a clone of it, then use copy thereafter. and check when needed.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.