[Bug 11152] Feature Request: Cache Filelist

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11152 --- Comment #1 from Andre Bruce --- I believe that I can get our company to make a donation/contribution, using paypal, to have this feature (or, if you prefer, we may contribute with server hardware which is not in use anymore). If there is any de

[Bug 11161] New: rare crash in hlink.c:536

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11161 Bug ID: 11161 Summary: rare crash in hlink.c:536 Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: x64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5

[Bug 11152] New: Feature Request: Cache Filelist

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11152 Bug ID: 11152 Summary: Feature Request: Cache Filelist Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug 11151] New: rsync transfers entire source file even when unable to create destination

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11151 Bug ID: 11151 Summary: rsync transfers entire source file even when unable to create destination Product: rsync Version: 3.0.9 Hardware: All OS: All

[Bug 4615] encryption with rsync: using ssh's algorithms?

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4615 --- Comment #2 from Shachar Shemesh --- What you're asking for is currently possible with an external utility, called rsyncrypto (http://rsyncrypto.lingnu.com). It, in fact, does not require you to trust the server you're storing your backups on. -

[Bug 4615] encryption with rsync: using ssh's algorithms?

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4615 Matthias changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@matthiasbock.net --- Comment #1 from Matthi

[Bug 7249] Add an option to use O_NOATIME

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7249 --- Comment #6 from don...@gmx.com --- +1 from here as well. I understand the arguments about the limited usefulness of the atime field in general, and I agree with much of it, but to me there are more use cases than what's mentioned in what I've re

[Bug 11111] Describe the interaction between --one-file-system and --delete-excluded

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1 --- Comment #1 from Bill McGonigle --- argh - messed up the reduced example. Should be host:/ rsync --one-file-system --delete-excluded --exclude=/bar/ host:/ /foo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. --

[Bug 11111] New: Describe the interaction between --one-file-system and --delete-excluded

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1 Bug ID: 1 Summary: Describe the interaction between --one-file-system and --delete-excluded Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: All OS: All

[Bug 11101] support writing to devices

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11101 --- Comment #1 from Jason Pyeron --- this is https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync-patches.git;a=blob;f=write-devices.diff using it in production now -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all

[Bug 11101] New: support writing to devices

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11101 Bug ID: 11101 Summary: support writing to devices Product: rsync Version: 3.0.6 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5

[Bug 10081] Multiple rsync instances conflict

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10081 --- Comment #2 from devuran...@gmx.net --- I assume this is not being considered, because the backup needs to be restored in case the new file is corrupted? So overwriting it would be bad? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Con

[Bug 11075] Shouldn't --inplace fail immediately if it can't make files?

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11075 --- Comment #1 from Robin Powell --- Apparently it's not just --inplace?? rlpowell@flowcytech01> rsync -aPv /data/cytobank/Data/experiments/1/1053/experiment_11053/attachments/attachment_24023_RightCells150Clusters5%Downsampling.zip shell01:/var/w

[Bug 11086] rsync --delete has stopped to delete destination files that don't exist at the source

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11086 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Korb --- Not really. I wrote my own. IIRC BackupPC is the most up to date one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the

[Bug 11086] rsync --delete has stopped to delete destination files that don't exist at the source

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11086 --- Comment #4 from ddd --- Well, maybe I should look into those rsync-based snapshot systems when I'll buy another 3 TB HDD. ) Can you recommend any of those backup systems? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the

[Bug 11086] rsync --delete has stopped to delete destination files that don't exist at the source

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11086 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Korb --- What you have is a mirror not a backup system. Sure, it can protect you from accidental deletions or disk failures but it wouldn't protect you from intentional data destruction (think virus or hacker). Yes, I wa

[Bug 11086] rsync --delete has stopped to delete destination files that don't exist at the source

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11086 --- Comment #2 from ddd --- Thank you a lot! I added --exclude='.gvfs' parameter and everything works now. Thumbs up! I was trying to use --delete-before because of low space on the partition. Now it's really enough space and I use default --delet

[Bug 11086] rsync --delete has stopped to delete destination files that don't exist at the source

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11086 --- Comment #1 from Kevin Korb --- This is your problem: > 2015/01/31 17:25:58 [12091] rsync: readlink_stat("/home/myuser/.gvfs") > failed: Permission denied (13) If rsync hits any error it aborts the deletion process which it would have said wit

[Bug 11086] New: rsync --delete has stopped to delete destination files that don't exist at the source

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11086 Bug ID: 11086 Summary: rsync --delete has stopped to delete destination files that don't exist at the source Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: x64 OS: L

[Bug 11075] New: Shouldn't --inplace fail immediately if it can't make files?

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11075 Bug ID: 11075 Summary: Shouldn't --inplace fail immediately if it can't make files? Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NE

[Bug 11067] New: add --min-depth and --max-depth options

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11067 Bug ID: 11067 Summary: add --min-depth and --max-depth options Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement

[Bug 10989] "copying unsafe symlink" warnings occur if nothing changed

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10989 Jim Avera changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|"copying unsafe symlink"|"copying unsafe symlink" |wa

[Bug 10989] "copying unsafe symlink" warning treated as error, prevents --delete from working

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10989 --- Comment #2 from Jim Avera --- A much more serious problem is that when "unsafe" symlinks are copied pursuant to the --copy-unsafe-links option, they are all treated as I/O ERRORS. This prevents --delete from ever working. -- You are receivin

[Bug 10170] rsync should support reflink similar to cp --reflink

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10170 James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||purplei...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from James --

[Bug 10170] rsync should support reflink similar to cp --reflink

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10170 --- Comment #3 from roland --- fantastic ! did not know about that feature in btrfs, but as i already did inplace backups with rsync on btrfs, i think i will give that a try. i just wondered about reflink support in zfs and putting a link here fo

[Bug 10170] rsync should support reflink similar to cp --reflink

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10170 David Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||davidt-samba-bugzilla@yadt.

[Bug 11035] New: make check failure

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11035 Bug ID: 11035 Summary: make check failure Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: x64 OS: Mac OS X Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P5

[Bug 2294] Detect renamed files and handle by renaming instead of delete/re-send

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294 --- Comment #22 from elatl...@gmail.com --- Wow 10 years. Maybe one reason this has not been implemented is there are other options. For example I have been using a shell script as a wrapper to reduce the iteration of this bug, here is how it works:

[Bug 10977] Rsync path spoofing attack vulnerability (rsync 3.1.1 tested)

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10977 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Wayne Davison

[Bug 11027] New: Sticky bit not set when using --chmod=D+t alone, without --perms

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11027 Bug ID: 11027 Summary: Sticky bit not set when using --chmod=D+t alone, without --perms Product: rsync Version: 3.0.9 Hardware: All OS: All Status

[Bug 7757] with big file, rsync times out out when it should not; the sender is still responsive

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7757 --- Comment #4 from Dominic Raferd --- I can confirm that this bug still exists when using compression (-z) with rsync 3.1.0 (server and dest), and that removing compression is a good workaround. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the

[Bug 11013] New: [patch] Mention that privileges are dropped, when "use chroot" is enabled in rsyncd.conf manpage

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11013 Bug ID: 11013 Summary: [patch] Mention that privileges are dropped, when "use chroot" is enabled in rsyncd.conf manpage Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: All

[Bug 10636] Feature request: Show current source path on receipt of Posix signal

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10636 --- Comment #1 from Shawn Heisey --- I really like this idea. I'm using rsync extensively during a storage migration, as it's the only tool that can quickly and effectively synchronize a source tree to a destination tree when there are periodic ch

[Bug 10995] rsync -aFF crashes when parent directory of source directory has a .rsync-filter file with a dir-merge rule in it

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10995 --- Comment #1 from Lars Tiede --- Sorry, my last paragraph came out confusing. It should read: Note that the above steps are minimal with respect to as far as I was able to isolate the bug: remove the filter rule and it works. Remove src-parent/s

[Bug 10995] New: rsync -aFF crashes when parent directory of source directory has a .rsync-filter file with a dir-merge rule in it

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10995 Bug ID: 10995 Summary: rsync -aFF crashes when parent directory of source directory has a .rsync-filter file with a dir-merge rule in it Product: rsync Version: 3.1

[Bug 10990] New: rsync -avHP does not detect out of space situation

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10990 Bug ID: 10990 Summary: rsync -avHP does not detect out of space situation Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 10989] "copying unsafe symlink" warning should not occur if file is not changing

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10989 --- Comment #1 from Jim Avera --- Created attachment 10497 --> https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=10497&action=edit Demo script -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for m

[Bug 10989] New: "copying unsafe symlink" warning should not occur if file is not changing

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10989 Bug ID: 10989 Summary: "copying unsafe symlink" warning should not occur if file is not changing Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: All OS: Linux

[Bug 3784] Showing Progress without being Verbose

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3784 --- Comment #8 from João M. S. Silva --- I'd also like this enhancement very much, especially because when I use -v the process stalls somehow during the transfer (simple home directory backup) and I have to "killall rsync". Why does --progress imp

[Bug 10936] Rsync path hijacking attack vulnerability

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10936 --- Comment #6 from gaojianfeng --- (In reply to Wayne Davison from comment #3) yes ! In newest version rsync(3.1.1),directly modify the file path into absolute path is not hijack succeed due to the security checks,but using symbolic links still c

[Bug 10977] New: Rsync path spoofing attack vulnerability (rsync 3.1.1 tested)

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10977 Bug ID: 10977 Summary: Rsync path spoofing attack vulnerability (rsync 3.1.1 tested) Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: All OS: Linux Statu

[Bug 10936] Rsync path hijacking attack vulnerability

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10936 --- Comment #5 from Wayne Davison --- (In reply to roland from comment #4) Yes, those are the commits for this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omi

[Bug 10936] Rsync path hijacking attack vulnerability

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10936 --- Comment #4 from roland --- that fix is this two commits, correct ? https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=commit;h=371242e4e8150d4f9cc74cdf2d75d8250535175e https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync.git;a=commit; h=4cad402ea8a91031f86c53961d78bb7f4f174790

[Bug 10936] Rsync path hijacking attack vulnerability

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10936 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug 10951] Emtpy parameter triggers unwanted behavior, but no error message

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10951 --- Comment #3 from Wayne Davison --- Let me also add that if the cause was a bash shell variable that ended up being empty, then you should note that it is a bash-ism to require parameters to be double-quoted in order for them to behave sanely (e.

[Bug 10951] Emtpy parameter triggers unwanted behavior, but no error message

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10951 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 10963] rsync to multiple destinations

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963 --- Comment #5 from Dave Yost --- This is not about running them in parallel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe

[Bug 10963] rsync to multiple destinations

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Korb --- If you want to run them in parallel then use gnu parallel. It would keep the specified unmber of jobs running until it runs out of new jobs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for th

[Bug 10963] rsync to multiple destinations

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963 --- Comment #3 from Dave Yost --- What I'm after is an argument syntax that supports copying to multiple destinations. It's fine by me if rsync executes a multiple-destination command via multiple, sequential copies. I am not advocating an incomp

[Bug 10963] rsync to multiple destinations

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Korb --- These would be separate rsync (and ssh) connections. What use case would justify bundling them together into a single rsync session? The only benefit over multiple exections of rsync would be a lack of per-sessi

[Bug 10963] rsync to multiple destinations

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963 --- Comment #1 from Dave Yost --- Something like this would be useful: rsync foo s1: --add-destinations s2:dir s3:dir or rsync foo s1: --to s1: s2:dir s3:~ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please

[Bug 10963] New: rsync to multiple destinations

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963 Bug ID: 10963 Summary: rsync to multiple destinations Product: rsync Version: 3.0.6 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P

[Bug 10925] non-atomic xattr replacement in btrfs => rsync --read-batch random errors

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10925 --- Comment #4 from roland --- yes, you are right. thanks for pointing it out. wouldn`t it make sense to close this one and make a clean, new bugzilla entry with a proper title what the problem is about - severity/importance "enhancement" ? wha

[Bug 10925] non-atomic xattr replacement in btrfs => rsync --read-batch random errors

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10925 --- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva --- Yeah, the btrfs bug is now fixed, so now the rsync --read-batch misbehavior changed from bad error reports to silent waste of cpu cycles: it doesn't make sense for rsync to test and set xattrs concurrently on

[Bug 10951] Emtpy parameter triggers unwanted behavior, but no error message

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10951 --- Comment #1 from Stian Ertvåg --- The "--exclude" without a value was of course a punshing error in our system, but we think this should trigger an error instead of syncing to the folder defined as excluded. The lack of output may occour because

[Bug 10951] New: Emtpy parameter triggers unwanted behavior, but no error message

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10951 Bug ID: 10951 Summary: Emtpy parameter triggers unwanted behavior, but no error message Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Hardware: x64 OS: Linux Stat

[Bug 10950] New: rsync hangs when specifying a backup directory

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10950 Bug ID: 10950 Summary: rsync hangs when specifying a backup directory Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Hardware: x64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 10925] non-atomic xattr replacement in btrfs => rsync --read-batch random errors

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10925 --- Comment #2 from roland --- it has been resolved already - two days after this report !!! http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=141552257121836&w=2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-a

[Bug 10925] non-atomic xattr replacement in btrfs => rsync --read-batch random errors

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10925 --- Comment #1 from roland --- interesting find, if btrfs has xattr races, but the question is how to produce an appropriate repro case. on a tiny btrfs here on my debian wheezy system, i did some massive parallel run of "setfattr -h -n user.mya

[Bug 10756] rsync can't create files or dirs in subdirs (sometimes?)

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10756 --- Comment #2 from roland --- please provide some more information like type of filesystem , details of your snapshot-script etc your rsync commandline looks weird, as there is ), " inside. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the Q

[Bug 10941] include should supersede max-size

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10941 --- Comment #2 from roland --- i think this is a very special use case and adding that as a feature would make no sense, imho, as rsync shouldn`t be turned into a jack of all trades tool. what about specifically syncing those files with an extra r

[Bug 10941] include should supersede max-size

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10941 --- Comment #1 from Kevin Korb --- --include[-from] is only for overriding excludes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsu

[Bug 10941] New: include should supersede max-size

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10941 Bug ID: 10941 Summary: include should supersede max-size Product: rsync Version: 3.0.9 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority

[Bug 8856] --hard-links does not handle hard-linked symlinks correctly on FreeBSD

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8856 --- Comment #10 from sylv...@ilm-informatique.fr --- Created attachment 10436 --> https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=10436&action=edit syscall.c patch A #ifdef HAVE_LINKAT should probably be added -- You are receiving this mail because

[Bug 8856] --hard-links does not handle hard-linked symlinks correctly on FreeBSD

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8856 --- Comment #9 from sylv...@ilm-informatique.fr --- Created attachment 10435 --> https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=10435&action=edit configure.ac patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Ple

[Bug 8856] --hard-links does not handle hard-linked symlinks correctly on FreeBSD

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8856 --- Comment #8 from sylv...@ilm-informatique.fr --- To expand on the previous post : POSIX previously mandated that link() resolve the target (as FreeBSD does), but some systems (including Linux) did not. So in the last standard linkat() was added (w

[Bug 10936] Rsync path hijacking attack vulnerability

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10936 --- Comment #2 from gaojianfeng --- (In reply to roland from comment #1) yes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe

[Bug 10936] Rsync path hijacking attack vulnerability

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10936 --- Comment #1 from roland --- in other words - a malicious rsync server can force a client to create any file in any path, as long as the client can write to that path ? indeed, interesting find - and a security bug then. -- You are receiving

[Bug 10936] New: Rsync path hijacking attack vulnerability

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10936 Bug ID: 10936 Summary: Rsync path hijacking attack vulnerability Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: critical

[Bug 10925] New: non-atomic xattr replacement in btrfs => rsync --read-batch random errors

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10925 Bug ID: 10925 Summary: non-atomic xattr replacement in btrfs => rsync --read-batch random errors Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Hardware: All URL: http://articl

[Bug 10074] rsync reorders --from-files alphabetically

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10074 Dave Rice changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@dericed.com --- Comment #6 from Dave Rice

[Bug 10910] build: FTBFS paralel build start before proto.h generation (patch)

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10910 --- Comment #1 from Philippe "RzR" Coval --- Created attachment 10393 --> https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=10393&action=edit 0001-build-generate-proto.h-before-parallel-building.patch will be merged temporary downstream in tizen pro

[Bug 10910] New: build: FTBFS paralel build start before proto.h generation (patch)

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10910 Bug ID: 10910 Summary: build: FTBFS paralel build start before proto.h generation (patch) Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: All OS: Linux St

[Bug 10893] New: Allow option to sync symlinks last (or delayed)

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10893 Bug ID: 10893 Summary: Allow option to sync symlinks last (or delayed) Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement

[Bug 10857] weirdly named files fail remotely

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10857 --- Comment #7 from Wayne Davison --- Those are both the same on the rsync side of the pipe. Use: rsync -aR {} dest/ (where dest is a directory path or a host:directory combo for the root dir of the destination hierarchy). -- You are receiving t

[Bug 10857] weirdly named files fail remotely

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10857 --- Comment #6 from samba@tange.dk --- > As for this: > >find . -type f -print0 | parallel -0 rsync {} remote:backup/{} Is there also a better way for: find . -type f -size +1000 -print0 | parallel -0 rsync {} remote:backup/{} -- Yo

[Bug 10857] weirdly named files fail remotely

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10857 --- Comment #5 from Wayne Davison --- If rsync begins quoting remote args, it would make assumptions about what needs to be quoted and its rules for quoting things. There is also a historical use of arg-splitting that was primarily used on the sou

[Bug 10857] weirdly named files fail remotely

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10857 --- Comment #4 from samba@tange.dk --- Can we start by agreeing that rsync _could_ be aware that it is starting a remote shell and thus _could_ quote anything that needed quoting? Currently it clearly does not quote and puts that responsibilit

[Bug 10857] weirdly named files fail remotely

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10857 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Korb --- This isn't an rsync problem this is the way the shell works. When you run rsync over ssh as you are doing there rsync is running 'ssh remotehost rsync [options] path'. There is a shell between the sshd process a

[Bug 10857] weirdly named files fail remotely

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10857 --- Comment #2 from samba@tange.dk --- I understand what is happening and I know the workarounds for the bug - that is not the issue. Why is it that rsync prefers having a syntax, where if I transfer the file locally I need to write something,

[Bug 10857] weirdly named files fail remotely

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10857 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME Status|NEW

[Bug 10857] New: weirdly named files fail remotely

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10857 Summary: weirdly named files fail remotely Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component:

[Bug 10847] New: inconsistent units should be unified and follow SI/IEC standard

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10847 Summary: inconsistent units should be unified and follow SI/IEC standard Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: t

[Bug 10845] New: mention on man page tips about best file content practices

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10845 Summary: mention on man page tips about best file content practices Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 10785] [PATCH] Add a flag to use numeric sort

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10785 --- Comment #2 from r...@rom1v.com 2014-09-12 07:43:31 UTC --- Arf, it breaks file selection and file content under some conditions (remote transfer and partial sync — when some files are already present). So (at least for now), I close this bug/pa

[Bug 10785] [PATCH] Add a flag to use numeric sort

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10785 r...@rom1v.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 8512] rsync is slower than cp -- Reduce overhead to cp for transfer of large files

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8512 --- Comment #5 from Peter van Hooft 2014-09-09 07:49:13 UTC --- We use rsync to copy data from one file server to another using NFS3 mounts over a 10Gb link. We found that upping the buffer sizes (as a quick test) increases performance. When using

[Bug 10799] Feature request: detail --dry-run mode when --debug=exit

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10799 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 10799] New: Feature request: detail --dry-run mode when --debug=exit

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10799 Summary: Feature request: detail --dry-run mode when --debug=exit Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancem

[Bug 10785] [PATCH] Add a flag to use numeric sort

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10785 r...@rom1v.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #10229|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug 10785] New: [PATCH] Add a flag to use numeric sort

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10785 Summary: [PATCH] Add a flag to use numeric sort Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Compone

[Bug 10772] Bad time logging as daemon

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10772 --- Comment #2 from Paul Slootman 2014-08-22 14:55:03 UTC --- Perhaps rsync should instead of calling a time function, first determine the offset from UTC that local time is, and then whenever a timestamp is printed first apply that delta and ignor

[Bug 10776] New: SIGSEGV in utf8_internal_loop()

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10776 Summary: SIGSEGV in utf8_internal_loop() Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: cor

[Bug 10772] Bad time logging as daemon

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10772 Wayne Davison changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug 10772] New: Bad time logging as daemon

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10772 Summary: Bad time logging as daemon Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Platform: x64 OS/Version: Mac OS X Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: cor

[Bug 5565] xattrs not set on locked files that already exist on target

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5565 Ruben Kerkhof changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ru...@rubenkerkhof.com --- Comment #2 from

[Bug 10724] rsync 3.1.1 incorrectly creates extra dirs inside --backup-dir on Mac OSX

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10724 --- Comment #4 from David 2014-08-10 12:35:52 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > I wonder if that commit was trying to fix another bug that exists in at least > 3.1.0, and possibly other versions. When an empty directory is deleted from > source b

[Bug 10724] rsync 3.1.1 incorrectly creates extra dirs inside --backup-dir on Mac OSX

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10724 --- Comment #3 from David 2014-08-10 12:25:58 UTC --- I wonder if that commit was trying to fix another bug that exists in at least 3.1.0, and possibly other versions. When an empty directory is deleted from source but exists in target, and the -

[Bug 10405] Feature request: Add support for pre/post cmds for the rsync client

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10405 --- Comment #3 from Christian Ruppert 2014-08-07 19:17:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > regarding restricted ssh - wouldn`t that be a security nightmare if rsync > could > exec any additional command ? At least my idea is meant to be client

[Bug 10405] Feature request: Add support for pre/post cmds for the rsync client

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10405 --- Comment #2 from roland 2014-08-06 21:45:38 UTC --- regarding restricted ssh - wouldn`t that be a security nightmare if rsync could exec any additional command ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ---

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >