rsync vs SyncML (Funambol)

I would like some idea about how rsync compares to SyncML/Funambol, especially when it comes to bandwidth, sync over unstable network and multiple clients to one server.

This is to sync several mobile devices with a directory structure of growing text-files. (Se we essentially want as much as possible on the server, and inconsistent files is not really a problem, also we know where changes originates).

So far, it seems Funambol doesn't compress, doesn't handle partial updates, and it is difficult to handle interruptions in a file-transfer.

I know rsync doesn't go through the server, but I don't quite see how that is a disadvantage.

Olav,

rsync can:

• Compress the data (as you said) - thus gaining better performances over the net.
• Synchronize only the newest data within each file - thus, once again, saving time.
• Can be ran by multiple users at the same time. It's a very basic backup software behavior.
• And one of my favorites: work over a secure shell.

You might want to check Rsyncrypto, for compressing and encrypting at the same time.

Dotan