Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use MD5 sum to confirm file has changed. #110

Closed
mpfj opened this issue Nov 26, 2012 · 5 comments
Closed

Use MD5 sum to confirm file has changed. #110

mpfj opened this issue Nov 26, 2012 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@mpfj
Copy link

mpfj commented Nov 26, 2012

** Reopened issue from owncloud/core#523 ***

[See forum posting @ http://forum.owncloud.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5612]

I have a home OC server (4.5.2) up and running on a Linux box.

I took a copy of my parents' photos (13Gig of data) on to a USB disk, took the disk home and then copied the photos (using my local network) on the OC server.

I now setup a sync between the photos directory on my parents' PC (client 1.1.1) and the copy on the OC server at my house.

But the client on my parent's PC is a bit stupid and clearly doesn't check the actual file contents, and so starts to copy all the photos back across to the server.

This is a completely pointless operation.

Surely an md5sum (or similar hash calculation) should be performed to determine if a file copy is required. This is how rsync works under Linux.

I now understand that you only check the modification timestamps, but I would have thought a behaviour like the following would be possible:-

(a) if timestamp has not changed, do nothing
(b) if timestamp has changed, perform an md5sum to confirm the contents have change
(c) if the contents have changed, copy the file data
(d) if the contents have not changed, but the timestmpa has, then just sync the timestamps.

Or at least make this an option !?!

@danimo
Copy link
Contributor

danimo commented May 1, 2013

waiting for owncloud/core#523 to be resolved.

@guruz
Copy link
Contributor

guruz commented Jan 23, 2015

Please track #2542

@guruz guruz closed this as completed Jan 23, 2015
@guruz
Copy link
Contributor

guruz commented Jan 23, 2015

Re-opening, this is about different issues.

@ogoffart
Copy link
Contributor

duplicate: #3235

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants
@ogoffart @guruz @dragotin @mpfj @danimo and others