up vote 2 down vote favorite
share [g+] share [fb]

I need a way to synchronize files between 3 places, all of which can be modified.

All places are on Linux, and the synchronization tool has to run from cronjob - not manually!.

I tried unison, but I can't make it to work with 3 separate places (I tried configuring by using a<=>b and b<=>c synchronizations, but it doesn't work).

Is there any tool that could do something like this?

link|improve this question
72% accept rate
Why doesn't the unison approach work? Have you considered using a version control system for this? – pjc50 Dec 3 '09 at 11:39
You want a change in one place to end up on the other two? – innaM Dec 3 '09 at 12:32
@Manni: yes - it should work in all directions. – depesz Dec 3 '09 at 13:36
Because you're already using unison I think a plain rsync is not what you want? – cringe Dec 3 '09 at 14:10
@Carsten: I am not aware of a way to setup rsync so that it will make 3-way synchronization. – depesz Dec 3 '09 at 14:34
feedback

5 Answers

up vote 4 down vote

Have you tried Dropbox for Linux?

link|improve this answer
I thought that dropbox required user to "do something" to synchronize. On the other hand - I need it to be done automatically. And the amounts of data (~100GB) that I need to be synchronized look like a bad match with dropbox. – depesz Dec 3 '09 at 14:31
No action required, but for 100GB it's probably not the right tool – user12889 Dec 3 '09 at 22:57
1  
If the majority of files remain unchanged, there is not much problem as Dropbox sends only the file's differences between computers (not to mention that has a LAN-only feature to sync them really fast if they are in same LAN). But the real problem is that for 100GB of data it also means that you will have to pay $19.99/month... – Saxtus Dec 3 '09 at 23:16
feedback
up vote 1 down vote

An unorthodox idea, couldn't you just use GIT?

link|improve this answer
I think I could, but I don't know it (yet), and I'm not feeling comfortable with learning git on important data. – depesz Dec 3 '09 at 12:21
Since you seem to have huge amount of data, GIT won't work either. – Jimmy Hedman Dec 3 '09 at 21:38
Well, I would feel even more comfortable with Git (compared to other solutions) because you cannot possibly ever loose data. Also, Git really does not have problems with huge amount of data. Though, you have the problem that it will keep some redundant data, i.e. at least of the size of the data itself (you can delete data from the history, so also not much more than that). – Albert Jul 6 '10 at 15:23
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

How about Subversion, using a free service like projectlocker or cvsdude? It's very easily scalable.

link|improve this answer
subversion keeps 2nd copy of data in .svn directory. which in case of 100GB of base data is far from practical – depesz Dec 3 '09 at 17:30
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

Does the data change at all places all the time? Otherwise you could start your work by doing a rsync from one (that you declare as the master) to the machine you work and then rsync back when you are done.

link|improve this answer
Yes. I have no control about what changes where or when - these are basically 3 offices with some people in all of them. – depesz Dec 3 '09 at 22:09
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

NFS or Samba, no cron jobs required.

link|improve this answer
Neither of these work well in scenarios with not-so-good connectivity. – depesz Dec 13 '09 at 16:29
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown
discard

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.