not to split hairs but I mentioned rsync being more efficient as it only copies changed bits.
Problem with just using Xcopy is it doesn't support ftp (afaik I could be proved wrong) I guess you could mount the FTP drive with the old netdrive, but me I would prefer to do it with as few tools as possible, with as little user interaction as possible. The little user interaction is also why I did the /m switch on xcopy, it copies only changed files, using the archive bit as a marker, as whenever a file in windows is changed the archive bit is reset. On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Kevin Shackleton <[email protected]>wrote: > with xcopy I use /d (only copy files with newer date). Actually I > use: /d /s /y. Maybe these aren't optimal? > > No-one has mentioned that rsync is actually VERY CLEVER at minimising > bandwidth and proudly announces at the end of the sync job that it's > done something like 1% of the bandwidth (therefore also time) that might > be consumed otherwise. If it works against an rsync daemon at the other > end. > > Kevin. > > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 12:11 +1000, Morgan Storey wrote: > > Windows has the archive bit built in. You could simply xcopy/robocopy any > > files with the archive bit to a staging directory then ftp up that > > eg: > > *xcopy path:\to\Files\ path:\to\staging /m /e /v /c /y* > > Then use your favourite scriptable ftp client to upload it, there are a > few > > out there, I think you can even use windows built in one, but I don't > tend > > to play with that. > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Andre Kolodochka <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > ftp is the last resort, rsync is obviously a better one. Also, not > > > aware of good tools that would check the differences in directory > > > trees and update only the files that are different over ftp. > > > > > > Andre. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2009/5/26 Dean Hamstead <[email protected]>: > > > > why not use ftp then? > > > > > > > > > > > > Dean > > > > > > > > Andre Kolodochka wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Is there something not necessarily based on rsync? ftp, for example? > > > >> > > > >> Andre. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 2009/5/26 Christopher Vance <[email protected]>: > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Alan L Tyree <[email protected] > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I use unison: > > > >>>> http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/<http://www.cis.upenn.edu/%7Ebcpierce/unison/> > <http://www.cis.upenn.edu/%7Ebcpierce/unison/> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It claims to run on Windows, but I have no experience with that. > > > >>> > > > >>> It does. I've used it on Ubuntu, Windows, OpenBSD, MacOS, and > Solaris. > > > >>> > > > >>> The biggest problem with Unison is that the protocol changes so > > > >>> frequently that you may have difficulty finding precompiled > versions > > > >>> for your different operating systems which run compatible > protocols. > > > >>> > > > >>> It may be easier to compile from source, but then you'll need to > have > > > >>> ocaml compilers on the relevant machines... > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Christopher Vance > > > >>> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://fragfest.com.au > > > > > > > -- > > > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > > > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > > > > > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
