http as a transport for rsync?
robert at headsprout.com
Thu May 3 13:48:42 GMT 2007
On May 3, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Bob Bagwill wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:33:38 -0400, Robert Denton
> <robert at headsprout.com> wrote:
>> Given the increasing reliance on proxies and filtering devices, it is
>> harder and harder to rsync across the net. Do you think we will ever
>> be able to use http as a transport for rsync? For example, when will
>> I be able to do this:
>> rsync -arv http://rsync.domain.tld/webroot
>> It would seem that this is the logical next step for rsync and is the
>> one feature I most desparately need. What would be required for
>> this? An apache mod? Perhaps this email can be a catalyst for a
>> positive brainstorming session towards this end.
> IMHO, that doesn't make sense for rsync. That's what WebDAV is
> for. Of course,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP-Tunnel already exists, if that's
> what you want.
> Bob Bagwill
I have indeed considered http-tunnel but I see a few issues with it.
One, it adds a layer of complexity to a rather standard and innocuous
procedure: synchronizing. It would be nice if rsync could deal on its
own with being behind proxies, etc (increasingly common). Another is
that many of the clients I manage are not directly accessible by me,
and I can issue them occasional commands, so something like 'yum -y
install http-tunnel' would be quite resonable, but installing from a
tarball is less so. http-tunnel is not yumable at this point to my
knowledge. Further, http-tunnel works if you can maintain the tunnel
but due to power outages, bandwidth outages, etc, maintaining the
tunnel would be more challenging (although admittedly doable). r.
More information about the rsync