"state timesize" not working as expected

Thorsten Kampe thorsten at thorstenkampe.de
Sat Oct 17 12:18:22 EDT 2009


* (17-Oct-09 17:42 +0200), Joe Orton
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 01:42:38PM +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
>> Okay, here we go:
>>
>> thorsten at tkampe% ll .zshrc
>> -rw------- 1 thorsten None 15k Oct 16 13:30 .zshrc
>>
>> thorsten at tkampe% touch .zshrc
>>
>> thorsten at tkampe% ll .zshrc
>> -rw------- 1 thorsten None 15k Oct 16 13:34 .zshrc
>>
>> ----
>>
>> thorsten at nietzsche% sitecopy -f tkampe
> 
> Why are you doing a --fetch here?

To pull ("--synch") in the next step the changes from the remote
computer to the local computer. This works if the file size has
changed or I use "state checksum".

> That will update sitecopy's stored state to match the current local
> modtime of the file, if you're using "state timesize". It is
> expected that you won't see a modtime change after this sequence:
> the modtimes of files on the server will always be different to
> those locally, so sitecopy must ignore them after a --fetch.
> 
> If you enable "safe" mode then it will work how you expect for the 
> second --fetch after you enable safe mode.

"When enabled, each time a file is uploaded to the server, the
modification time of the file as
on the server is recorded. Subsequently, whenever this file has been
changed locally and is to be uploaded again, the current modification
time of the file on the
server is retrieved, and compared with the stored value. If these
differ, then the remote copy of the file has been altered by a foreign
party. A warning message is issued, and your
local copy of the file will not be uploaded over it, to prevent losing
any changes."

I am downloading but uploading. I don't know why I should use a
"safety method" as it does not apply to my case. There is no "foreign
party altering files".

The manual says that sitecopy is primarily for "copying locally stored
web sites to remote web servers". I first used sitecopy for a site
where there was no direct connection between two servers so I had to
push the changes on the source to a server on the internet and pull
the changes from there to the destination server.

While in my current environment both push and pull would be possible
as there is a direct connection between the hosts, I'd rather pull the
changes than push. This works fine for size and checksum changes -
just not for modification time changes.

The reason for preferring pull to push is that pushing changes to the
destination would mean that a part of the filesystem would be writable
remotely which I don't want for security reasons.


Thorsten



More information about the sitecopy mailing list