Is there any way I can fool Lightroom into thinking that the two 'local' drives are the same drive so that the catalog will pick up my files automatically? The folder structure is identical in each, (the only differences would be any copies edited externally and stored in the original folder - which I can deal with using rsync).
If the drives in both locations have the exact same names (MAC) or the same drive letter (Windows), then Lightroom will recognize them as soon as you open the program, and you won't have any need to re-connect the photos inside of LR. (By the way, this isn't something you do to "fool" Lightroom, it is a designed feature)
Is there any way to maintain two catalogues, but keep my edits synchronised across both?
I would abandon the idea of two catalogs that should somehow synchronized to be identical. This is not a feature of Lightroom.
Any other suggestions - have I totally missed something?
When I'm in the 'other' location, of course Lightroom doesn't find the files. It seems I either need to remap all of those files in the catalog to the 'other' drive (which takes a very long time)
Do you mean after it takes a very long time after you re-map the files (which obviously should take some time for the computer), or do you mean that the task of you (the human user of Lightroom) doing the re-map takes a very long time? This shouldn't take a human user more than 15 seconds to re-connect everything if the drives are identical as you claim.
Thanks for the quick reply.
Sounds like renaming the drive is the best approach, I wasn't sure if drive name was the only thing Lightroom used to identify a device. I'll test that out and see how it goes
Given that I do my synchronization using a third drive - I shouldn't ever have to worry about attempting to mount the identically named drives at the same time.
That should also allow me to notice up any files that may have been missed in synchronization, which is not so easy with my current process.
I meant the time it takes the computer to remap 8Tb is not insignificant. The last time I tried it, I recall it failed at some point - so I haven't tried since.