Replication performance improvement

orteg · Joined: 30 May 2010 Posts: 2

I am testing/discovering your product and it is really flexible and powerful, but I have found something that could be improved in comparison with the software I am currently using.

If you try to replicate (no matter if it is augment, refresh or update) a small local folder with a large remote folder, it takes a long time because vv collects all the information of the remote directory. Much of that information is not necessary:

Even if you have a million files/folders in the target directory, you only need to try to collect information of matches/mismatches of the 1 hundred files/folders in the source.

Collecting information for those extra 1.000.000-1.000 files/folders over the WAN is a waste of time.

The business case behind this is: I run a website with lots of pictures. I could have full sync copy in my local drive, but syncing would take very long (at least longer than the nest option). Instead I have a local folder where I drop new and updated pictures that I replicate to the web server.

This other user is asking for the same thing http://www.tgrmn.com/web/forum/viewtopict2677.htm

It would be grate if replication could work this other way, at least as an option if the current way is to be kept for some reason.

Thank you very much,

Miguel

TGRMN Software · Site Admin Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 8769

Hello

Yes, assuming that the target files do not change, ViceVersa could keep a cached list of the target files so it does not need to re-scan it each time. But that would not necessarily work with synchronization, as files could be changing in target too. This is a very useful new feature we'd like to add to ViceVersa.

thanks
_________________
--
TGRMN Software Support
http://www.tgrmn.com
http://www.compareandmerge.com

orteg · Joined: 30 May 2010 Posts: 2

Exactly, this would only be for replication.

Your solution seems much more elegant to me than mine. I was thinking about looping through the files in the source and checking one by one against the target. But your local cached copy would reduced WAN trips and it would be much faster!

I can't wait for it Wink

Miguel