Rsync on 3 places

[Alexandros Papadopoulos]

Please keep replies on-list for the benefit of others, the archives etc.

On 10/12/07, Michael Reynolds <neufurth_bernd at yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> question. I am running on Macintosh OS X operating
> system . You wrote about installing daemon on machine
> A and put clients on B and C. I would like to ask you
> what are benefits (differences) between running rsync
> as daemon (server) and just by writing script by
> simple command ? I tried just simple command and looks
> it works ( I am using switches "vctzErR". I am asking
> about it because if I create just one script on
> machine A I can simply change it only on one place.
> Otherwise your solution need the script will be
> changed on two places (B and C) so I am just asking
> what is advantage of rsync "server" in this case.

Because of security considerations I tend to avoid excessive daemons.
Any extra listening port on a host is an extra security threat.

With that in mind, I would go for one daemon on machine A, and the two
other machines using simple scripted rsync commands to exchange data
with the daemon.

Other than that, it's up to you. You're right that if you have two
daemons (on hosts B & C) and one script (on host A) you have less
scripts to maintain.

Cheers

-A