On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Chris Samuel <[email protected]> wrote: > --only-write-batch=FILE > Works like --write-batch, except that no updates are made on > the destination system when cre‐ ating the batch. This lets you > transport the changes to the destination system via some other means and > then apply the changes via --read-batch.
Thanks, this was the ideal solution to my problem. The destination system has a cable connection, but the people there do a lot of Youtube so they don't have bandwidth for another dozen gigs in any given month. A 16G USB stick with an rsync batch file solved the problem. One nice feature is that a shell script is written to run rsync on the receiving system. So you never need to run an rsync command to read the batch file (unless you do something strange) as you have a shell script that should do it properly. Unison sounds interesting, it's something to consider for future uses, thanks John Mann. Trent's suggestion of maintaining two trees for --write-batch is interesting, not necessary for this case but could be for some other situations. I guess that might break the shell script that rsync creates though. The -n and -i options suggested by Chris and James are useful. They do what I originally wanted to do. But it turns out that the batch support is even better. The rsync people are really smart. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
