rsync replacement

[Jamie Lokier]

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 to be equivalent to
> a combination of rsync, unison, and ssh.  Mike, am I missing something
> that syncdat can do but rsync and unison can't?  And is more
> information available about the benchmark that found that syncdat is
> "Up to ten times faster than rsync" (
> http://www.dataexpedition.com/syncdat/ )?

I looked at their web site, and they're claiming that their patented
MTP/IP protocol is so much superior to TCP/IP over wide area networks
that it makes data transfer faster - due to handling congestion
better.  If you're transferring over a LAN, or uncongested network, it
offers no advantage.

I read their patent; it's written in impenetrable bullshitese, and
seems to resemble a sort of transaction-oriented TCP SACK.  If I had
to trial their program, I'd compare with HTTP, FTP or rsync/similar
over a modern TCP or SCTP implementation with a few of the esoteric
TCP congestion control modules in 2.6 Linux, and ensure I wasn't CPU
bound.

Their FAQ indicates that their program does not compress
automatically, and I saw no indication of a delta-transmission
protocol equivalent to the rsync algorithm.

They have a product which tunnels any TCP/IP stream over their MTP/IP.
I'm guessing running rsync over that would give the same gains as
using their file transfer utility, assuming there are gains, and the
added benefit of rsync delta-transmission.

-- Jamie