An alternative to rsync on both *nix and Windows is unison: http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/
http://www.openlogic.com/wazi/bid/188061/Unison-Makes-Two-Way-File-Sync-Simple Kurt On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Micheal Espinola Jr <[email protected]> wrote: > It sounds like a Synology device might fit your budget and expectations. As > for a robocopy alternative, for what you are doing, you might want to look > into rsync. > > -- > Espi > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'd rather not go that route, particularly what comes to mind is user A >> makes some changes t Doc 1, then user B needs to review / edit Doc 1-, then >> they start emailing it to eachother, or usb etc.. that's is why I'd rather >> just supply them a "device" for a couple of hundred dollars and be done with >> it- their total data (soup to nuts) is under 100gb >> >> I'm thinking at this point maybe some network based enclosure and >> schedule a robocopy every 30 minutes? >> >> On that note, i;ve been robocopying forever, anything newer/better out >> there? >> >> >> Jean-Paul Natola >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: [email protected] >> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:33:55 -0400 >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] cost-effective storage failover >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> I guess an obvious answer would be to use Offline Files, if the >> workstations have the space to store the cached files. >> >> >> >> If you go with that you should choose the option to encrypt the offline >> files on the workstations. Also, I’ve learned not to use an alias for the >> file server or to have DNS and NetBIOS names that differ from each other, >> though I doubt you would have that problem in such a small office. (If more >> than one name is used, Offline Files will probably see the names as >> different servers.) It’s not completely without problems, mostly involving >> the time it takes to sync, but it seems to be much better on newer versions >> of Windows than on Windows 2000 and XP. >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J- P >> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 2:16 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [NTSysADM] cost-effective storage failover >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> For a small office (10 users) , i want to have a secondary storage device >> that syncs with server share, so that in the event the the server goes down >> (power supply goes, memory failure etc..), they can continue to work till >> the server comes back online. >> >> They are too small to justify the expense of second physical server, any >> thoughts? >> >> thanks >> >
