4 ms·

Looks neat, a benchmark page comparing it to other tools would be great. Ie, how does it compare to the speed of rsync? Others?

• paulfresquet 11mo ago
  Thanks! About benchmarks: I don't have formal speed comparisons yet. ByteSync started by using a C# port/rewrite of the classical rsync algorithm, so the delta algorithm and hashing logic are very similar in spirit. The main difference is the surrounding architecture. Where rsync works as a point-to-point stream tool, ByteSync adds: - a two-stage inventory (size+timestamp scan + signature computation when needed) - E2EE on every remote transfer - orchestration and compression on the fly - hybrid routing (LAN direct or encrypted relay when remote) - session-based modeling with DataNodes/DataSources This means that in remote scenarios, ByteSync avoids many of the round-trips that kill performance when latency is high. It also computes signatures only when needed, not systematically. So I can’t claim ByteSync is “faster than rsync” — rsync is extremely optimized in its domain — but in hybrid or high-latency setups, ByteSync often behaves better because it avoids unnecessary passes and works with a more structured model of the data. Benchmarks are something I'd like to add. Perhaps once automation and CLI are ready, because it'll make comparisons much easier to run and publish.