I´am relly interestet in finding a way to sync my 2 macs with apeture. I am not so intresting in copy files (or det hole librery) between the macs. I want sync how Terence Devlin describ it. Pleas let me now when there is a solution
Just to clarify a few misstatements in this thread.
Dropsync is just an excellent GUI front end for the classic UNIX tool rsync which is included in Mac OS. Rsync is really powerful. It is not a bit like Time Machine. It does NOT do incremental backups. It synchronises two folders, and by synchronise, I mean make them identical. Try reading the rsync manual and you will see that it is a very complex beast with rows of command line options. That is why Dropsync is so great. It makes rsync usable.
The most cunning feature of rsync is that it works at the block level within files. So if there is only a small change in a file rsync will only copy the change, not the whole file. So it is wickedly fast.
Rsync will correctly sync any type of Mac datastructure including iPhoto or Aperture libraries.
However, there are two caveats.
1. Databases like iPhoto libraries must not be open when synced. You must shut down iPhoto, Aperture and any other software with write access to the data, before syncing.
2. You can only edit one end of the sync at a time. There is NO mechanical way to sync a data structure if it has been modified at two locations.
In general when rsync finds that files have been modified at both ends of the sync, it merges the two including the changed bits of both and adds text bits into the file to mark the duplication for manual resolution. You do not want this to happen in iPhoto or Aperture. So use a workflow that satifies 1 and 2 above.
You have got it.
If both A and B have been modified then any sync will require manual intervention to clarify the conflict. No software can decide if you want A or B. Given the complexity of the bundle datastructures used by iPhoto etc., manual intervention is not practical.
So it will work but ony with a strict workflow:
Shut down the editor on A
Sync to B
Only open the editor on B after the sync has completed.
To return to A
Shut down the editor on B
Sync to A
Only open the editor on A after the sync is completed.
Rsync is very fast because it only syncs changes within files not complete files. So the above is not as painful as it sounds.
A final thought:
Do NOT use Dropbox. It is brain dead and will trash your data. The problem is that it expands symlinks which is guaranteed to lose data.
I am experimenting with Google Drive. It ignores symlinks but this may not be a major problem because I suspect they are only in the library for backward compatability reasons. Even if they are vital, they could be added in manually.
Your "splitting hairs" (I don't know if you have this saying in the US). Evey thing stored on a computer is a file and even a database no matter how complex the database is. As for keeping two databases identacal (in sync) yes you can open databace A and compare it to databace B find eany diffinces then using some rules like:
If change in A is older than change in B then make A like B and maniplate the image files in the aporpate way. else make B like A and maniplate the files in the apropate way.
Your more simplay don't open the databases (it dose not matter becouse what you are going to do is this)
If change in "File System A" is older than "File System B" then make "File System A" the same as "File System B" else make "File System B" the same as "File System A"
As "File System" includs the database no matter how the database is changed in "File System A" "File System B" and the database it contains will be the same and vice-versa.
The Aperture Library is no diffent from other data in a computer the database is keep in the folder on the file system. If we where talking about syncing one database used with one program and a database with a different structure form another programs or diffent version of the program then you are RIGHT!!! but I assume we are talking about the same program and version with the same database structure in which case there is no need for the "hair splitting"