Original Message
On Oct 2, 2021, 12:36, < devz...@web.de> wrote:
>>In the exchange I argued that proper use of ram as a buffer would have cut
>>down backup time to minutes instead of days.
>could you give an example where rsync is slowing things down so much due to
>ram
The branch, master has been updated
via 78b5bc66 Enable --atimes on macOS.
via f41cdc75 Check ro in set_create_time() for Cygwin too.
from c8e7c4b3 Avoid an issue where the size of st_dev != dev_t.
https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=shortlog;h=master
- Log
Just note this patch has nothing to do with memory consumption vs
performance. It just avoids allocating memory that was left unused anyway.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2021, 12:51 devzero--- via rsync
wrote:
> >In the exchange I argued that proper use of ram as a buffer would have
> cut down backup time to
>In the exchange I argued that proper use of ram as a buffer would have cut down backup time to minutes instead of days.
could you give an example where rsync is slowing things down so much due to ram constraints or inefficient ram use?
please mind that disk bandwith and file copy bandwith is
If you look at my previous exchange in the list, I raised the need for more ram
usage via a tool option. In the exchange I argued that proper use of ram as a
buffer would have cut down backup time to minutes instead of days. At the time,
my proposal was dismissed by someone saying that rsync
The branch, master has been updated
via c8e7c4b3 Avoid an issue where the size of st_dev != dev_t.
via bff084c1 Always run `mkgitver` prior to a build
from 16c8b05f Add more NEWS updates.
https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=shortlog;h=master
- Log
The branch, master has been updated
via 16c8b05f Add more NEWS updates.
via 15dd2058 Change do_chmod to always try lchmod() first (when
possible).
via c27180c0 Add a couple more options to rrsync.
via 050fdd41 Allow the script to be run from inside the packaging
The branch, master has been updated
via ae1f0029 Reduce memory usage (#235)
from 3911c238 Tweak SIMD & ASM option defaults.
https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=shortlog;h=master
- Log -
commit
The branch, master has been updated
via 3911c238 Tweak SIMD & ASM option defaults.
via 3814dbb0 Make cygwin's curl grab the gist file. [buildall]
via 82f023d7 Add --fsync option (promoted from patches).
via ec57c57b Help avoid a --sparse --inplace bug in older
Looks awesome, really nice catch!
--
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
In 2004, an allocation optimization has been added to the file
list handling code, that preallocates 32k of file_struct pointers
in a file_list. This optimization predates the incremental
recursion feature, for which it is not appropriate anymore. When
copying a tree containing a large number of
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 22:03:01 +0200
Johannes Altmanninger wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 01:54:13PM +0200, Jindřich Makovička via
> > rsync wrote:
> >
> > Applying the attached patch, which reduces the default allocation
> > to 32 pointers, and preallocates 32K pointers only for the main
> >
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 01:54:13PM +0200, Jindřich Makovička via rsync wrote:
>
> Applying the attached patch, which reduces the default allocation to 32
> pointers, and preallocates 32K pointers only for the main file lists in
> send_file_list and recv_file_list, reduces the peak memory usage
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 13:38:22 +0200
Jindřich Makovička wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:54:13 +0200
> Jindřich Makovička wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Applying the attached patch, which reduces the default allocation to
> > 32 pointers, and preallocates 32K pointers only for the main file
>
On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:54:13 +0200
Jindřich Makovička wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ...
>
> Applying the attached patch, which reduces the default allocation to
> 32 pointers, and preallocates 32K pointers only for the main file
> lists in send_file_list and recv_file_list, reduces the peak memory
> usage in
The branch, master has been updated
via 745ecf28 Fix a couple variable typos.
from 265785b7 x86-64 AVX2 assemby implemenation of get_checksum1() (#174)
https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=shortlog;h=master
- Log -
The branch, master has been updated
via 265785b7 x86-64 AVX2 assemby implemenation of get_checksum1() (#174)
from 97f4d48a configure improvements
https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=shortlog;h=master
- Log -
commit
Hi,
When using rsync to back up the file system on my laptop, containing a
pretty much default linux desktop, I was wondering how rsync uses over
100MB of RAM it allocates.
It turned out that most of the memory is used for the arrays of file_struct
pointers, most of which end up unused - much
Hi Wayne,
I have been performing the package maintenance (bumps) for a LibreELEC over
the past year in the lead up to the LE10 release.
Just enquiring if you have a planned/proposed release coming up?
Just enquiring given the PR requests into LibreELEC
We are trying to back up a large number of small files and have issues
with high memory usage.
On both ends debian 11.0 is running with rsync version 3.2.3 protocol
version 31.
Ideally we want to use the options `-a --delete --backup -e ssh` to run
this transfer and pull a backup from the
I am getting a number of errors from rsync
ERROR:
a3-swbase/05-nonfsw/scien/NatrResour/Seiscope/fullwav/fullwav--4.8/fwi/fwinv--3d/examples/ddm_nostk/ftopo0
failed verification -- update discarded.
When this happens, rsync gets stuck on the file for a long time, slowing other
rsync commands.
I am using rsync in the following manner
rsync -av --inplace --update --log-file=/medhd/a3-swbase/05-nonfsw.log
/medhc/a3-swbase/05-nonfsw /medhd/a3-swbase/
Normally the file name is outputted. Would it be possible to also add the time
before the name?--
Please use reply-all for most replies
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 12:58 AM, Kevin Korb
wrote:
> Quoting from the man page
>
> SORTED TRANSFER ORDER
> Rsync always sorts the specified filenames into its internal
> transfer list. This handles the merging together of the contents of identi‐
>
Quoting from the man page
SORTED TRANSFER ORDER
Rsync always sorts the specified filenames into its internal
transfer list. This handles the merging together of the contents of identi‐
cally named directories, makes it easy to remove duplicate
filenames, and may confuse someone
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 12:29 AM, Kevin Korb
wrote:
> Well, what you have should function. But rsync is going to sort the list.
I want rsync to use the list as given to it by shuf.
> On 9/17/21 8:26 PM, hancooper wrote:
>
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message
Well, what you have should function. But rsync is going to sort the list.
On 9/17/21 8:26 PM, hancooper wrote:
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 12:06 AM, Kevin Korb via rsync
> wrote:
>
>> Not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here. Seems like
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, September 18, 2021 12:06 AM, Kevin Korb via rsync
wrote:
> Not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here. Seems like it
> should work the way you have it. Note that many wonky rsync kludges are
> due to people not realizing that rsync can
Not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here. Seems like it
should work the way you have it. Note that many wonky rsync kludges are
due to people not realizing that rsync can have multiple source
arguments. Instead of the source simply being . it can be a list of
stuff. Also, note
I am trying to pass filename results that have been shuffled, then pass the
file to rsync.
Not quite sure whether to use --files-from=- or some other way.
shuf -n "$nf" -e ${dpath}/${incl} |
rsync -av --update --files-from=- . "$dst"--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the
Occasionally rsync issues errors, which result in slowing a system during a
transfer.
Would it be possible to skip the transfer of the file rather than having rsync
continue to insist, trying the transfer many times?
rsync: read errors mapping
Is it likely that rsync is the cause of the symptoms?
If so, how and can the rsync command be changed to prevent the problem?
While running this command ...
rsync --filter=protect _Changed and deleted files/ --exclude=/_Changed
and deleted files/ --backup --backup-dir=_Changed and deleted
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 12, 2021 5:10 AM, Kevin Korb wrote:
> --inplace can prevent rsync from running you out of disk space when
> updating a large file. But you don't want to mix it with --update.
> Judging by your other message you think that --update means
--inplace can prevent rsync from running you out of disk space when
updating a large file. But you don't want to mix it with --update.
Judging by your other message you think that --update means modiify
files that are already on both ends. It doesn't. It only means that
rsync is forbidden to
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 12, 2021 2:34 AM, hancooper via rsync
wrote:
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, September 12, 2021 2:03 AM, Kevin Korb k...@sanitarium.net wrote:
>
> > I thought I did elaborate. If it is a problem for you then maybe you
> >
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 12, 2021 2:03 AM, Kevin Korb wrote:
> I thought I did elaborate. If it is a problem for you then maybe you
> shouldn't be using --update. Or you should let rsync delete incomplete
> files upon abort as it does by default.
I am using the
I thought I did elaborate. If it is a problem for you then maybe you
shouldn't be using --update. Or you should let rsync delete incomplete
files upon abort as it does by default.
On 9/11/21 9:29 PM, hancooper wrote:
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Saturday, September 11, 2021 11:20 PM,
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, September 11, 2021 11:20 PM, Kevin Korb via rsync
wrote:
> --archive is all you really need. I actually wish --archive was the
> default because it is all most people need and with the exception of
> writing to a FAT filesystem it is almost always
--archive is all you really need. I actually wish --archive was the
default because it is all most people need and with the exception of
writing to a FAT filesystem it is almost always needed.
--append is for very special cases and should only be used if you really
know you need it and why.
I am struggling to understand exactly what the rsync options --update and
--append-verify do.
Doing info rsync gives
-u, --update
This forces rsync to skip any files which exist on the destina‐
tion and have a modified time that is newer than the source
file. (If
Yes, cpio -l can be useful since cpio can easily operate on the output
from the very capable find command.
On 9/4/21 8:34 PM, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
> I was thinking --link-dest too.
>
> Sometimes this can be done with cpio too; check out the -pdlv options.
>
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 4:57 PM
I was thinking --link-dest too.
Sometimes this can be done with cpio too; check out the -pdlv options.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 4:57 PM Kevin Korb via rsync
wrote:
> Rsync does almost everything cp does but since it is designed to network
> it never got that feature. I was thinking maybe
Rsync does almost everything cp does but since it is designed to network
it never got that feature. I was thinking maybe --link-dest could be
tortured into doing it but if it can I can't figure out how. BTW, you
have some pointless dots in there.
On 9/4/21 6:41 PM, L A Walsh via rsync wrote:
>
I noticed in looking at download dirs for a project, that
another mirror had "crept-in" for usage (where different mirrors
are stored under mirror-URL names). To copy over the diffs,
normally I'd do:
rsync -uav dir1/. dir2/.
(where dir1="the new mirror that I'd switched
to by accident, and
--compress or -z will compress during data transfer
what about a variable compression rate?
--optimal-compress or -za
monitor the speed of the transfer and the cpu throughput and
automatically find the optimum compression in almost-real-time with
the goal of reduced transfer time
i figure
> I could just have synced the file anyway?
First important note to make known up front:
When rsync qualifies a file for transfer, then by default it performs in-flight
transfer checksums to verify the SRC and DST are binary same.
The --checksum option is an extra step in determining "Does this
Hello,
I am using the "--checksum" option, when syncing files over the network.
But when syncing large files locally, does it make sense to use
--checksum, or would it slow things down?
I mean, if it needs to calculate the checksum first, it could just have
synced the file anyway. right?
Hey folks,
My installed distro rsync version is: 3.1.3 (3.2.3 available in backports).
Per subject, it would be great for one of my use cases, to be able to see a
list of files that were evaluated for transfer but excluded (not skipped).
I've tried -vv and -ii and --info=skip and --info=all4
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 9:40 PM, Kevin Korb wrote:
> Most of the speedup is due to ssh being bound to a single CPU. You will
> get a little more speed out of a single CPU system but the speedup is
> unlikely to go past
Most of the speedup is due to ssh being bound to a single CPU. You will
get a little more speed out of a single CPU system but the speedup is
unlikely to go past 2 in parallel. Even with that you may end up adding
more latency via disk seeks to accomplish much.
On 8/24/21 5:12 PM, hancooper
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 9:12 PM, hancooper via rsync
wrote:
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 8:25 PM, Kevin Korb via rsync
> rsync@lists.samba.org wrote:
>
> > In my experience backing up multiple hosts to a single host can
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 8:25 PM, Kevin Korb via rsync
wrote:
> In my experience backing up multiple hosts to a single host can speed
> things up. Especially if using rsync over ssh with multiple CPUs on the
> single host. You would need to do some
In my experience backing up multiple hosts to a single host can speed
things up. Especially if using rsync over ssh with multiple CPUs on the
single host. You would need to do some experimentation to determine the
best number for your hardware and network. Also, if you exceed that
number you
It makes sense to we to run multiple rsync commands to speed up a backup.
At work, some have argued that if I sync the data all to the same host, there
is no advantage
in parallelization. Whether you sync 3x 1G in parallel or 1x 3G makes no
noticeable difference.
Speed in general does not
Subject: Teo En Ming's Guide to Configuring rsnapshot Backup for Linux Servers
rsnapshot backup for Linux servers is based on rsync.
Author: Mr. Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming (TARGETED INDIVIDUAL)
Country: Singapore
Date: 18 August 2021 Wednesday Singapore Time
Type of Publication: Plain Text
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14798
Bug ID: 14798
Summary: Metadata traffic --- uncompressed with -z, interaction
with --bwlimit and ssh compression
Product: rsync
Version: 3.1.3
Hardware: All
> On 2021-08-15 07:09, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
So, yeah, rsync is giving you that message because you added an
extra flag to specifically tell it to do so. :) Try "name1" and
see if that fixes it.
thank you. I think that solved it.
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 07:03:18AM +0200, Fourhundred Thecat via rsync wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there a way to suppress this message when syncing files?
>
>is uptodate
>
> I would like to see only files that have been synced.
>
> The internet forums are full of people asking how to get
Hello,
is there a way to suppress this message when syncing files?
is uptodate
I would like to see only files that have been synced.
The internet forums are full of people asking how to get rid of this,
even as far back as 10 years, and only hack I could find is to pipe it
to grep.
I suppose I may as well mention:
https://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~dstromberg/Backup.remote
It just does rsync snapshotting with --link-dest, and keeps the last n
snapshots. It's smart enough to resume a previously interrupted snapshot.
It's pretty simple - both to set up and to use. I used to
tl;dr: rsnapshot is usually the best plan.
Details:
rsnapshot copies files from remote machines and stores snapshotted
directories locally. If you want to get the CentOS servers copied to the
synology then you need to run rsnapshot from the synology. Synology doesn't
have rsnapshot out of the box
Subject: Which method (rsync-based) is better for backing up Linux
servers to Synology NAS?
Good day from Singapore,
Our customer has 2 CentOS 7.9 Linux servers with cPanel web hosting
control panel installed.
We would like to backup the 2 CentOS 7.9 Linux servers to Synology NAS.
Which method
Greg Minshall via rsync wrote:
> >If you only do backups at 1am (or whenever), why would your
> > backup machine enable ssh outside of the range 12:59 - 01:01?
>
> Greg's rule of windows: the narrower the window, the more likely it will
> be hit. :)
>
But I use Linux, not windows..
On 2021/08/07 08:45, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
Because cron/anacron isn't perfect and the machine being backed up nay
not be turned on all the time so the time that it tries to backup is
most definitely not fixed accurately!
My *backups* of important data are incremental
>If you only do backups at 1am (or whenever), why would your
> backup machine enable ssh outside of the range 12:59 - 01:01?
Greg's rule of windows: the narrower the window, the more likely it will
be hit. :)
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To
The original request was to be able to copy files from local /etc to a
remote /etc
while retaining file permissions (perms, owner, etc). This does require
root on
the receiving box in some way.
Commenting on some previous suggestions:
* connecting to the remote system as a non-root user and
On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 08:10:47AM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> On 2021/08/07 03:44, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
> > L A Walsh via rsync wrote:
> > > It seems to me, a safer bet would be to generate an ssh-cert
> > > that allows a passwdless login from your sys to the remote.
> > >
> > The trouble
On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 11:44:34AM +0100, Chris Green via rsync
wrote:
> L A Walsh via rsync wrote:
> > On 2021/08/03 07:09, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
> > > I already have an rsync daemon server running elsewhere, I can add
> > > this requirement to that I think. Thank you.
> > >
> >
On 2021/08/07 03:44, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
L A Walsh via rsync wrote:
It seems to me, a safer bet would be to generate an ssh-cert
that allows a passwdless login from your sys to the remote.
The trouble with that is that it leaves a big security hole.
If you only
L A Walsh via rsync wrote:
> On 2021/08/03 07:09, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
> > I already have an rsync daemon server running elsewhere, I can add
> > this requirement to that I think. Thank you.
> >
>
>
> It seems to me, a safer bet would be to generate an ssh-cert
> that allows a
On 2021/08/03 07:09, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
I already have an rsync daemon server running elsewhere, I can add
this requirement to that I think. Thank you.
It seems to me, a safer bet would be to generate an ssh-cert
that allows a passwdless login from your sys to the remote.
Andy Smith via rsync wrote:
>
> > I've set it up so chris can run rsync with root permissions.
> > However I'm not quite sure how to get it to work as one needs to say
> > "sudo rsync" to get the root privilege. How do you do that?
>
> The first link I sent you had an example of that:
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 03:05:27PM +0100, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
> Remember, as I said, this is all Debianland with no real root login,
> while I could add one I'd prefer not to.
Your system already has a root user and if you added an SSH public
key to its authorized_keys file
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 10:51:34AM +, Andy Smith via rsync
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 09:48:37AM +0100, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
> > But how do you handle the other end to restore the root ownership etc.?
> > The script has to do something like:-
> >
> > rsync
Andy Smith via rsync wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 11:48:31AM +0100, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
> > If I used the --super option (in a command like the one above) and
> > chris can run rsync as root on the remote end (via options in the
> > sudoers file) will this do what I
Paul Slootman via rsync wrote:
> On Tue 03 Aug 2021, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
>
> > Is there a way to copy (for example) the /etc hierarchy from one
> > system to another preserving root ownership of files and without
> > revealing root passwords all over the place?
>
> Best way is to run
Andy Smith via rsync wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 09:48:37AM +0100, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
> > But how do you handle the other end to restore the root ownership etc.?
> > The script has to do something like:-
> >
> > rsync -a /etc/ chris@remote:backups/etc/
> >
> >
On Tue 03 Aug 2021, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
> Is there a way to copy (for example) the /etc hierarchy from one
> system to another preserving root ownership of files and without
> revealing root passwords all over the place?
Best way is to run an rsync daemon on the source system, and be
Hi Chris,
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 11:48:31AM +0100, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
> If I used the --super option (in a command like the one above) and
> chris can run rsync as root on the remote end (via options in the
> sudoers file) will this do what I want? I guess I can go away and try
> it!
Hi Chris,
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 09:48:37AM +0100, Chris Green via rsync wrote:
> But how do you handle the other end to restore the root ownership etc.?
> The script has to do something like:-
>
> rsync -a /etc/ chris@remote:backups/etc/
>
> So at the remote end it only has chris'
Chris Green via rsync wrote:
> Is there a way to copy (for example) the /etc hierarchy from one
> system to another preserving root ownership of files and without
> revealing root passwords all over the place?
>
> This is actually from and to Debian based systems (from Raspberry Pi
> to Xubuntu)
Is there a way to copy (for example) the /etc hierarchy from one
system to another preserving root ownership of files and without
revealing root passwords all over the place?
This is actually from and to Debian based systems (from Raspberry Pi
to Xubuntu) so there's no actual root user login
>From what I understand `--backup-dir` uses a hierarchical backup. And
>`--suffix` appends the value
in `--suffix` to the end of each file.
What happens when one specifies both `--backup-dir` and `dest`. Is
`--backup-dir` a replacement to
`dest`, or not ?
From: Charles
To:
From: Charles
To: lisa-as...@perso.be;
rsync@lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: Utility of --backup
Date: 20/07/2021 02:37:50 Europe/Paris
> And let me do what you suggest. What is the difference, and is --backup
> better than the other ?
Only in conjunction with -backup-dir, for example
--backup
> And let me do what you suggest. What is the difference, and is --backup
> better than the other ?
Only in conjunction with -backup-dir, for example
--backup --backup-dir=_Changed and deleted files/2021/Jul/19@21:21
The man page's entry for --backup suggests using it with either
In Backup.rsync, which of course is a wrapper around rsync that can be used
for backups, I do not use --backup, but I do use --link-dest:
https://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~strombrg/Backup.remote.html
On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 11:13 PM Lisa via rsync
wrote:
> I would like some feedback about the
From: Charles via rsync
To: rsync@lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: Utility of --backup
Date: 19/07/2021 14:26:59 Europe/Paris
>IThe --backup option is great for creating "rolling full" backups which
>look exactly like the backed up tree except for the existence of the
>backup directory
I am not
IThe --backup option is great for creating "rolling full" backups which
look exactly like the backed up tree except for the existence of the
backup directory
Here's how a Linux backup directory tree looks as created by backup
utility bung's bu_rsync script
+-- bin -> usr/bin
+-- boot
|
Correct, the --backup is almost never discussed. Have never used it, but as I
have been
looking at the documentation, I have started to wonder about its usefulness.
From: Robin Lee Powell
To: lisa-as...@perso.be
Subject: Re: Utility of --backup
Date: 19/07/2021 08:33:45 Europe/Paris
Cc:
I would like some feedback about the --backup option in rsync. Is
it worth using it for backups, or should I just use rsync
commands that just transfer files without the use of --backup
option?
-b, --backup make backups (see --suffix & --backup-dir)
--backup-dir=DIR make backups into
The branch, master has been updated
via 35d4f673 Update the options in rrsync.
from 291a042b Support --crtimes on Cygwin.
https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=shortlog;h=master
- Log -
commit
The branch, master has been updated
via 291a042b Support --crtimes on Cygwin.
via 9dad3721 Make whole-line comments clearer.
from dbb1c2d1 Set whole_file = 0 when whole_file < 0. Fixes issue 114.
https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=shortlog;h=master
- Log
The branch, master has been updated
via dbb1c2d1 Set whole_file = 0 when whole_file < 0. Fixes issue 114.
via e8e34ed6 Need to also check stdout_format_has_i in some INFO-NAME
checks.
from c529782a Fix compiling without ftruncate.
The branch, master has been updated
via c529782a Fix compiling without ftruncate.
via 2dfd4849 fix man page typo
from a6bdf313 Unset DISPLAY in environment.
https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=shortlog;h=master
- Log
Part of the genius of Linux is the concept that each tool should do one
thing well and with pipes it is extremely easy to chain these tools
together in combinations unique to the current requirements of any task.
I can't speak for the rsync developers, but I don't believe they would be
open to
Am 25.06.2021 um 17:34 schrieb Knight, Dave:
The rsync stdout typically lists directories "considered" with a "/"
at the end and lists those files that actually get copied/sync'd by
name with no "/" at the end. If I understand your "problem"
correctly, you want to see only the copied files.
Once you have the closest superset of what you want to see in your rsync
output, run the result through a filter to clean it up before sending it.
sed and awk are great for this, but any language/script you are familiar
with will do. Having regexes for the pattern matching will make the job
Rsync by default displays nothing. There are more than one options that
tell it to display the files it is touching. There are other (and
duplicate) options that tell it to show everything. You didn't say what
options you are using so we have no idea. Except that you aren't using
Hello everyone,
Briefly to my problem - or wish: By lucky coincidence I came into
possession of an HP Proliant.
My junior installed OpenMediaVault for me.
I've been using it as a daily backup for my TeraStation ever since.
Rsync is set up for this.
Every day I get two emails from this backup,
Short answer: Don't use --append[-verify]
If you aren't syncing files that aren't tagged with 'chattr +a' you
don't want --append. --append-verify is essentially "I think --append
is a good idea to use on general files but rsync keeps corrupting
stuff!" but it still allows files to be out of
I noticed that my latest "syncHome" script log scontained a number of
unexpected "Permission denied" errors for some modified files. The cause
seems to be that those files were read-only at the target.
The syncHome script is used to maintain a partial mirror of my home
directory tree on another
601 - 700 of 34724 matches
Mail list logo
