N.J. van der Horn (Nico) wrote: > Hmmm, right, IF and only IF you notice the rename at the source on > time, you can do so at destination. But in practise, I see its > getting more and more impossible to keep up with the growing number > of hosts. Just keeping a DB with characteristics like checksum > seems to be not the ultimate solution, but at least in our case it > would help a lot, as the biggest disaster is just massive renaming, > or at top level. Like you state, when the renamed file(s) is/are > also modified, it is getting very hard to identify it/them again. > Basing on inode-number is not usable for all OS'es as far as i look > at the problem.
True, inode number is not usable for all filesystems on unix either. But it works well enough for most of them. Without trusting inode numbers from run to run, what can you do? Reading the content of all files to calculate the checksums before starting will take a very long time in many cases. -- Jamie -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
