Howdy,
Is there a performance difference between those 2 (or 3) modes?
The thing is, we have a testing environment, 1 site is in US, and the other remote site is in Taiwan. We use real-time monitoring and scheduled full compare (bidirectional standard copying method). We use a script to upload to both sites about 20~30 files (2 MB total) per minute.
We found that real-time monitoring scheme would execute, but due to network latency, SFFS would queue those files and constantly build file list and not upload/download a single file for more than 12 hours. We've checked log files and it was continually writing info in "This run is based on real-time folder monitoring information" area and there are about 34 thousand entries and still growing.
But if 2 sites are both located in Taiwan, the real-time monitoring would run without any problem.
Once we used attended mode to sync remote sites (the background/real-time monitoring was still executing), file list building soon completed and could finally started to sync files.
Therefore, in order to address those network flow, is real-time monitoring infeasible and we must manually run unattended mode instead? Also, what mode is scheduled run?
Thank you in advance.