Jon Craig gmail.com> writes:
> Maybe you better explain what you know and what you've tried so we are
> not forced to
> go over ground you may already have covered.
> Your very first post calls BackupPC's methods fragile and complains about a
> documented requirement of the login process.
There
Jon Craig gmail.com> writes:
> as for attitudes yours isn't one that inspires people to spend time trying to
support a marginal OS from a company that has a poor track record with the open
source world.
My first (perfectly polite) post got completely ignored. Nothing has changed my
opinion tha
Les Mikesell gmail.com> writes:
> If you are poking around in the guts of rsyncP, maybe you could
> experiment with removing the --ignore-times option
I tried that early on. Your "full" backup will have the full directory
structure, but NO FILES AT ALL.
Jon Craig gmail.com> writes:
> If you want the benefits of rsync then you must live with its limitations.
This is not a limitation of rsync. I specifically said rsync (C binary) works
just fine. The Perl::File::RSyncP doesn't seem to be ignoring the junk, and
waiting for the proper start chara
Allen rogers.com> writes:
> Try "touch .hushlogin" in the users home to suppress MOTD and other stuff.
I appreciate the suggestion, but the banner poping up isn't the actual motd,
though I put that in the subject to quickly give peope the right idea. I did
try creating a .hushlogin as a workar
Tyler J. Wagner tolaris.com> writes:
> Whatever this list is good for, I certainly don't feel compelled to assist
> you
> now.
Neither you, nor anyone else had offered any assistance before, so I'm not
seeing the downside.
-
RC gmail.com> writes:
>
> BackupPC_dump's method of using rsync seems fragile, and seriously falls down
> if the system throws any junk into the SSH login session. With multiple SCO
> systems that throw in the registration* banner below, BackupPC_dump will hang,
> for
RC gmail.com> writes:
> However, I'm just getting started with BackupPC myself, so I'm not sure if
> BackupPC properly understands that rsync incrementals are just as good as full
> backups, and that it can therefore expire the most recent "full" even though
&
Innop gmail.com> writes:
> But the protocol Rsync does it not based on the incremental backup?
Right. The only thing that seems to be different with a "full" for BackupPC is
the "--ignore-times" option. I found some details on line:240 in
lib/BackupPC/Xfer/Rsync.pm:
# A full dump is i
BackupPC_dump's method of using rsync seems fragile, and seriously falls down if
the system throws any junk into the SSH login session. With multiple SCO
systems that throw in the registration* banner below, BackupPC_dump will hang,
forever in fileListReceive(). On a SCO system that does NOT show
10 matches
Mail list logo
