Hi everyone,
Why you are debating the relative merits of psync and rsync.
Unless I missed something, psync is not available on Tiger anymore
and nobody has a fix for it.
So we don't have the option of using psync.
Joe.
On Jul 12, 2005, at 9:34 AM, Christopher D. Lewis wrote:
On Jul 10, 2005, at 11:39 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Christopher" == Christopher D Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Christopher> Dear psync users,
This may not help, but I'm about to be a former psync user, because
Tiger's "rsync" now understands the HFS fork, if you include -E.
This
presumably also includes the extended-access lists which psync won't
handle.
I thought the issue wasn't a patched rsync, but filesystem changes
that made "regular unix tools" automatically get the resource fork
when they tried to move, rename, etc. I don't fully understand
what it's doing, which makes me nervous -- also, I don't know how
non-Tiger remote systems will treat data sent by rsync on Tiger, so
I'm not sure how this will work for me as a backup. I will happily
look forward to your tales of success (rather than woe) and proceed
accordingly once you describe the transition into "former psync
user" status. On the other hand, I have a warm spot in my heart
for Perl, and I'll happily use psync 'till the cows come home if I
can work out how not to get bitten by this silent failure to back
up issue -- say, by following backup with a check for zero-length
files on the destination volume, since that's the symptom.
The incremental (within files) nature of rsync backups *does* have
appeal, though, especially as I consider remote backup; my current
setup involves only backup to an external drive.
Now to spend a few hours reverse engineering carbon-copy-cloner so
that I can ensure that I'm copying only the stuff that doesn't get
cleared on reboot anyway...
rsyncing your swap file across the internet could prove tiresome :-)
Best regards,
Chris
