At 10:19 08.04.2009 -0700, philvh wrote:
There are still problem to work out for example where data in the
destination are moved, and those data needs to be moved first before the
transfer of data take place. This will ensure that data is not lost and
only the same space as the source is needed.
From: Yan Seiner y...@seiner.com
To: Victoria Muntean viki...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 08:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: order transfers by file size
On Wed, April 8, 2009 8:19 am, Victoria Muntean wrote:
Is it possible to have rsync order transfers by file size (smallest
files first) ?
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5695
--- Comment #4 from wwen...@sbcglobal.net 2009-04-09 17:49 CST ---
I echo the thanks for all your hardword making rsync available to the masses.
I'd just like to add to this defect that I have a system where disk writes can
be very
Ok, I figured out the problem. I had to put in the full path for the --
backup-dir option. However, I have ran into another problem that makes
doing this just about useless. If I rsync to an HFS+ volume it works
correctly. If I rsync to a Samba share it gives me errors and puts
files it
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 07:18:39PM +, Andrew Gideon wrote:
The previous copy of the file has the correct/complete ACL, and the
link-dest logic sees this as different from the new copy result so
a new copy of the file - with the wrong ACL - is written.
Rsync was of the belief that a mask
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project The rsync repository..
The branch, b3.0.x has been updated
via 7875e6fe63805a3412cb4a8673a2dbf233631110 (commit)
from
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project The rsync repository..
The branch, master has been updated
via 5eb8bd4962a159c52bacb65bee86f20d1075beec (commit)
from
