[orev]

For anyone mentioning rsync, I would assert that rsync is very poorly named, and has polluted the ‘sync’ namespace with a meaning outside of what most people understand synchronization to be.

Outside of rsync, the ‘sync’ term almost invariably refers to bi-directional synchronization, with data going between both systems, so when the process is complete, both sides match. Rsync does not do this—it sends files one way only, which is what most people would refer to as a ‘mirror’.

Every other “sync” tool does things bidirectionally, so rsync really doesn’t belong in a comparison with other sync tools.

P.S. I’m aware that people who have never known a world without rsync may not realize that there’s a very real dividing line here, and this concept is very much one of the first the needs to be explained to people when first learning rsync.

[pmontra]

rsync is from 1996. I remember I told me something like "it's like rcp but only for what's changed". I agree that with hindsight mirror could be a better name and mirrordir [1] would have had to pick a different name in 1998 [2]

[1] https://linux.die.net/man/1/mirrordir

[2] http://www.landley.net/kdocs/als1999/Conference/PSheer2/Mirr...

[jiggunjer]

I think Google sync allowed a type of mirror mode too.

Personally I just call both types sync, and remember it can be bidirectional or unidirectional.