Hi,
I know there are several options, though none of which I have tried myself.
Rsync win32 port: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rsyncwin32/
rsync python script (should be platform-independent):
http://www.vdesmedt.com/~vds2212/rsync.html
Jarsync (in java): http://jarsync.sourceforge.net/, which
> with P2P, IMHO, redundant caching should be better.
>
> Your dichotomic approach looks nice, first a simple action to know
> wich node to ask, and after, consolidation of the answers.
>
> In your scheme, where are indexed documents? Each letter node contains
> their own documents?
, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Mathieu Lecarme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Le 2 mars 08 à 03:05, 仇寅 a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree with your point that it is easier to partition index by
> > document.
> > But the partition-by-keyword approach has much grea
Hi,
I am just doing some simple research on P2P searches. In my
assumption, all nodes in this system index their own documents and
each node will be able to search all the documents in the network
(including others'). This is just like file sharing. The simple
approach is to keep all the indices l
Hi,
I agree with your point that it is easier to partition index by document.
But the partition-by-keyword approach has much greater scalability over the
partition-by-document approach. Each query involves communicating with
constant number of nodes; while partition-by-doc requires spreading the
q
