On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> IIRC the idea behind this 'rsync replacement' was to get a mixture between 
> SUP(server) and rsync: rsync runs over all the disk and looks what's new, and 
> doing that for many concurrent clients is thrashing the disk very much. 
> SUP(server) on the other hand does some periodic scans of "what's new" (or 
> when it got new), and when a client comes it it already knows what's new (for 
> the client).
>
> I think the idea was to have some rsync server that does some periodic scans 
> on the disk (or gets some other ways of being notified for updates), and then 
> hands out files just like a "normal" rsync server, just without running all 
> over the disk.

In other words: the goal is to reduce load on the server, while keeping
the interface towards the client.


  - Hubert