SSH vs SMB vs NFS mount

[IMTheNachoMan]

I have a server with a Samba and NFS export (server:/data). I have a client that has the NFS export mounted (client:/data -> server:/data).

The way I see it, I have 3 options for using this NFS export in a Syncovery job. For the right side, I can:

1. Connect to server using SSH
2. Connect to server:/data using SMB
3. Use client:/data (which the OS manages as a connection to server:/data -- so Syncovery would never know it's on another server)

Is one way better or recommended?

[tobias]

Hello,
it's hard to say!

If both machines are Linux, a mounted NFS path might be best so that Syncovery can see the original Linux metadata and synchronize it properly.

SMB should also be mounted. The SMB button in Syncovery uses a somewhat limited smbclient library, which works single-threaded only and has problems with percentage signs in file names.

SSH might have the advantage of easier reconnection if there is an interruption.

[IMTheNachoMan]

Does it matter if I say that I plan to use real time sync for this Syncovery profile. In that case, is any option better?

[tobias]

Hi,
well the Linux version of Syncovery doesn't have real-time features.

But you can speed up full sync runs by installing the Syncovery Remote Service on the other server. With that, the syncs will be really fast and can be scheduled frequently, such as every 5 minutes or so.

[IMTheNachoMan]

I have Syncovery installed on both machines. The Syncovery profile in question is running on my client. So I just need to install the remote service on the server?

Left = client - /data
Right = server on the NFS mount on the client - /nfs/data

[tobias]

Hello,
one side needs the main Syncovery, and the other needs the Remote Service.

The Remote Service is available here:
https://www.syncovery.com/remservlinux/

[IMTheNachoMan]

Thank you kindly!