max file size

Hello, does anybody know what's the maximum file size (terabytes?) when using rsync with options --checksum and / or --inplace? What file sizes have been tested in reality? Are there any experiences using rsync (with --checksum and / or --inplace) for big files with several / dozens or

Re: Yet another include/exclude question

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Thomas Gutzler thomas.gutz...@gmail.comwrote: I thought --include=/this_dir/ --include=/this_dir/*** would do it, but it doesn't. The exclude * seems to overwrite the include matches: [sender] hiding file this_dir/foo because of pattern * Order is important.

Re: max file size

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 11:43 +0100, Heinz-Josef Claes wrote: does anybody know what's the maximum file size (terabytes?) when using rsync with options --checksum and / or --inplace? What file sizes have been tested in reality? Are there any experiences using rsync (with --checksum and / or

Re: max file size

Am Montag, 9. November 2009 17:48:35 schrieb Matt McCutchen: On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 11:43 +0100, Heinz-Josef Claes wrote: does anybody know what's the maximum file size (terabytes?) when using rsync with options --checksum and / or --inplace? What file sizes have been tested in reality?

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6881] New: --bwlimit option uses KiB/s, but is documented as (what amounts to) kB/s

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6881 Summary: --bwlimit option uses KiB/s, but is documented as (what amounts to) kB/s Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6881] --bwlimit option uses KiB/s, but is documented as (what amounts to) kB/s

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6881 --- Comment #1 from rlaa...@wiktel.com 2009-11-09 12:54 CST --- Created an attachment (id=4934) -- (https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=4934action=view) A patch to change the documentation to use KiB/s and kibibytes per

Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6881] New: --bwlimit option uses KiB/s, but is documented as (what amounts to) kB/s

samba-b...@samba.org wrote: Given that this is a network transfer rate, it'd be more proper (and consistent with other applications) to change the function to work in SI kilobytes per second (i.e. use 1000 instead of 1024), but that's backwards-incompatible. If you'd like to go this route, I

Re: Yet another include/exclude question

Thanks everyone for your help, I've got what I want. Wayne Davison wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Thomas Gutzler thomas.gutz...@gmail.com mailto:thomas.gutz...@gmail.com wrote: I thought --include=/this_dir/ --include=/this_dir/*** would do it, but it doesn't. The exclude *

Re: Yet another include/exclude question

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:45 +0800, Thomas Gutzler wrote: Thanks everyone for your help, I've got what I want. Wayne Davison wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Thomas Gutzler thomas.gutz...@gmail.com mailto:thomas.gutz...@gmail.com wrote: I thought --include=/this_dir/

Re: Yet another include/exclude question

Matt McCutchen wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:45 +0800, Thomas Gutzler wrote: Thanks everyone for your help, I've got what I want. My first attempt has been --include=*/ --include=*.foo --include=*.bar --include=/this_dir/*** --exclude=* which did nothing than *.foo and *.bar. Shuffling it

does it make sense to run rsync over ftp (curlftpfs)?

Hi, It seems to work but very slowly. I guess it's because rsync has to read the complete file content on the remote host, so does it make any sense at all to do it over FTP? - -- Kent Tong Wicket tutorials freely available at http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDW Axis2 tutorials freely

Re: does it make sense to run rsync over ftp (curlftpfs)?

Hello, Like on any other mounting system, if you run rsync over a mounted ftp volume, it won't be able to save you a lot of bandwidth with the delta algorithm as it's not running on both sides of the link. In another hand, if bandwidth is not your problem, with this method rsync should