"state timesize" not working as expected
joe at manyfish.co.uk
Mon Oct 19 08:55:38 EDT 2009
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 06:18:22PM +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> 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.
In timesize mode, sitecopy will store the mtime and size of the local
file as the "stored state" for each file. At each update run, the
current local state is compared against the stored state to determine
whether or not a file has changed.
When you do a --fetch in timesize mode, sitecopy will disregard all of
the mtimes of the remote files, because these cannot be used to
determine whether the local files are different to the remote files.
The mtime of the file on the server will always normally be different to
the local mtime - it will be the time at which the update has performed.
> 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.
If you have shell access to the remote server then I'd strongly
recommend you use rsync to synchronize the sites. This will be more
efficient, more reliable, and much faster than sitecopy in almost all
More information about the sitecopy