Jason Haar wrote:
> Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Check out the "TCP: advanced congestion control" option in a 2.6 Linux
> > kernel, and there is plenty of research on the topic. See SCTP and
> > DSCP (among others) for the more transaction oriented side.
> >
> Hi there Jamie
>
> Like yourself, our
Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Check out the "TCP: advanced congestion control" option in a 2.6 Linux
> kernel, and there is plenty of research on the topic. See SCTP and
> DSCP (among others) for the more transaction oriented side.
>
Hi there Jamie
Like yourself, our WAN (VPN over Internet) suffers ma
Matt McCutchen, on 7/17/2007 2:50 PM, said the following:
On 7/17/07, Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am in fact working towards such a program, though not with
proprietary congestion control. :-) It's currently in the form of a
distributed database of 650 devices, which I aim to scal
On 7/17/07, Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am in fact working towards such a program, though not with
proprietary congestion control. :-) It's currently in the form of a
distributed database of 650 devices, which I aim to scale up to
internet numbers, and I'm very interested in distri
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> Thus, syncdat gets #2 and #3 but (it seems) not #1. Rsync running on
> a TCP-over-MTP tunnel would get #1 and #2 but not #3. To get all
> three benefits, we would need to make a program that has both delta
> transmission like rsync and a parallelized protocol like syncdat
On 7/17/07, Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So am I right in thinking that using rsync in conjunction with your
tunnelling product as the underlying transport might give better
performance for incremental file transfers than your current client?
As I understand it, there are three perfo
Mike Jackson wrote:
>We are not claiming superiority, just that we provide performance
>gains over TCP when going over wan or congested networks. In-fact, we
>have a ftp server set up in Singapore if you would like to compare our
>technology to your ftp solution. you can fin
Jamie,
We are not claiming superiority, just that we provide performance
gains over TCP when going over wan or congested networks. In-fact,
we have a ftp server set up in Singapore if you would like to compare
our technology to your ftp solution. you can find the client
download on our
Andreas Kotes wrote:
> seems like they've implemented something similiar TCP on top of UDP
> which does a seriously better job (the information they provide points
> in that direction). Shame they don't give it to the public for free,
> like they got TCP, UDP, IP, DNS, SMTP, HTTP, ... ... ...
>
>
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > Does anyone have any experience with 'syncdat' from Data
> >Expedition? How does it compare to rsync?
>
> I looked at the syncdat feature list (
> http://www.dataexpedition.com/syncdat/features.html ). Aside from the
> claim of much better performance, syncdat appears
On 7/16/07, Andreas Kotes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
seems like they've implemented something similiar TCP on top of UDP
which does a seriously better job (the information they provide points
in that direction).
I'm wondering whether MTP is simply a better stream protocol (so that
rsync, could
Hello Matt,
You are correct when you say that syncdat is a rsync or unison like
product but what sets them apart is the enhanced performance over a
wide area network that syncdat provides. By utilizing our MTP
technology, sycndat is able to scan and send changed files up to ten
times fas
Hello Matt,
* Matt McCutchen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20070716 21:07]:
> I looked at the syncdat feature list (
> http://www.dataexpedition.com/syncdat/features.html ). Aside from the
> claim of much better performance, syncdat appears to be equivalent to
> a combination of rsync, unison, and ssh. M
On 7/13/07, Chris Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:21:43PM -0400, Mike Jackson wrote:
> Looking for more efficient replication or synchronization solution
> than rsync, take a look at syncdat by www.dataexpedition.com
Does anyone have any experience with 'sync
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:21:43PM -0400, Mike Jackson wrote:
> Looking for more efficient replication or synchronization solution
> than rsync, take a look at syncdat by www.dataexpedition.com
Hi Mike,
You seem to have a misunderstanding about what qualifies as
on-topic for the rsync maili
On 7/13/07, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looking for more efficient replication or synchronization solution than
rsync, take a look at syncdat by www.dataexpedition.com
Mike
--
To unsubscribe or change options:
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read:
ht
16 matches
Mail list logo
