Can linux syncronize directories?

[majorwoo]

yeah, except for when B is offline as wassy said....

your solution is no better then just a cp -a /comp_a_dir /comp_b_dir whenever they reconnect

not that any non-online solution can solve that, but I think that's what we are saying here.

[genlee]

Umm what do you mean. When a master server goes offline, the slaves stay online. I don't know what exactly you are getting at. Mysql replication is designed for high availability and to offer some type of load balancing.

[spitenmalice]

No not using SQL DB, I am using database files that I have created, not using directories. If Server A or B goes offline it will still work locally, not sure what other info I can give? Sounds like I'm S.O.L though. As far as replication that's not to hard, it's keeping both servers up to date, back and forth is the problem.

[genlee]

Check out www.openafs.org. That might be what you are looking for.

[spitenmalice]

Well openafs will clone but it will not merge files only copy and overwrite. I'm thinking I'm just going to clone the server as read only, that way my friend can still access data at the last update, and he'll still be able to function a bit. But he'll have to hand write changes he wants to make and do them later. Thanks for all the help though, I really appreciate it.

[Dolda2000]

No, use coda instead, like I first suggested. I'm almost completely sure that it can merge files.

[genlee]

Coda and afs both modify files the same way. If the slave server gets disconnected and changes are made to it and the master. Each change will be applied according to the timestamp. Afs was developed at cmu and then released to ibm. CMU then continued the product by the name of coda. Later IBM released the source for afs which started the openafs product. I was told by a friend of mine at cmu that the lead developer juped from coda to openafs. I have used both coda and openafs at work. I like afs more since it is more accepted(in production enviroments), more help, better documentation.