At 08:12 19.09.2007 -0700, Keith Lofstrom wrote:
On 9/18/07, Fabian Cenedese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering what happens if a file that is regularly synched but
seldom changes gets corrupted in the copy.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:23:28AM +0200, Fabian Cenedese wrote:
I was asking
At 15:15 18.09.2007 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On 9/18/07, Fabian Cenedese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering what happens if a file that is regularly synched but
seldom changes gets corrupted in the copy.
Are you referring to rsync writing corrupted data to the destination
file or a
Fabian Cenedese wrote:
At 15:15 18.09.2007 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On 9/18/07, Fabian Cenedese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering what happens if a file that is regularly
synched but
seldom changes gets corrupted in the copy.
Are you referring to rsync writing corrupted data
On 9/19/07, Fabian Cenedese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the explanations. That means that -l and -c are not
usable together as they contradict themselves, right?
Correct. I tested with rsync 2.6.9 and it appears that if you use
both, -c overrides -I.
I guess if I first made a normal
On 9/18/07, Fabian Cenedese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering what happens if a file that is regularly synched but
seldom changes gets corrupted in the copy.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:23:28AM +0200, Fabian Cenedese wrote:
I was asking because I'm responsible for our backups. The
On 9/18/07, Fabian Cenedese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering what happens if a file that is regularly synched but
seldom changes gets corrupted in the copy.
Are you referring to rsync writing corrupted data to the destination
file or a problem with the destination filesystem or disk
