Franc Carter wrote:
> >Unfortunately, yes.
> Shouldn't that be caught by the fact that the source file has a new
> (or at least different) time stamp now?
>
>Sorry, I should have given a clearer example.
>All in one second
>1. a process modifies the file and h
On 11/1/07, Fabian Cenedese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 23:09 31.10.2007 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> >On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:35 +1000, Franc Carter wrote:
> >> If am rsyncing a file and I have the the following sequence of events
> >> happen in
> >> the same second
> >>
> >>1. rsync
On 11/1/07, Matt McCutchen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:35 +1000, Franc Carter wrote:
> > If am rsyncing a file and I have the the following sequence of events
> > happen in
> > the same second
> >
> >1. rsync starts
> >2. rsync sends some chunk of data to the oth
At 23:09 31.10.2007 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:35 +1000, Franc Carter wrote:
>> If am rsyncing a file and I have the the following sequence of events
>> happen in
>> the same second
>>
>>1. rsync starts
>>2. rsync sends some chunk of data to the other end
>>
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:35 +1000, Franc Carter wrote:
> If am rsyncing a file and I have the the following sequence of events
> happen in
> the same second
>
>1. rsync starts
>2. rsync sends some chunk of data to the other end
>3 a local process modifies the chunk that has just been s
Flames/Cluestick invited if I've got this wrong.
I would expect:
rsync checks blocks on source to see if they are the same.
blocks which seemed to be the same (past tense) are not sent.
blocks which seemed to be different will be sent with whatever the current
content of the block happens to be.
t
Hi, I hope I have not been google-incompetant, but I have been unable to
find
an explicit answer a case I am concerned about.
If am rsyncing a file and I have the the following sequence of events happen
in
the same second
1. rsync starts
2. rsync sends some chunk of data to the other end
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-07 01:36 ---
Sorry, Wayne you are right 2^32+1 really is 1. :)
Yes 2^60 seems much to big to be practicable today but maybe, to avoid problems
in the future, it would be better to h
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-06 11:38 ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> cat rsync-intoverflowtest.c
#include
#include
int main(void)
{
unsigned i = UINT_MAX;
printf("i = %u, i+1 = %u\n", i, i+1);
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-06 11:10 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Did I made a mistake here?
I have some minor quibbles with what you stated (which I will describe below),
but, as you point out, this value c
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-06 06:37 ---
Now when len is OFF_T is it possible that sum->count (which is size_t) in
sum_sizes_sqroot() will rollover too at line:
sum->count = (len + (blength - 1)) /
On Thu 28 Oct 2004, Ryan Holowaychuk wrote:
> I want to to an Rsync with 4 servers. I want to sync the passwd and shadow.
> But I only want to do certain records to sync. basically all the user info.
> Is there away that this can be done? or do I have to do the whole file?
Rsync handles data per
I want to to an
Rsync with 4 servers. I want to sync the passwd and shadow. But I
only want to do certain records to sync. basically all the user
info. Is there away that this can be done? or do I have to do the whole
file?
thank
you
Ryan
Holowaychuk
Owner - HGIlive
www.hgilive.com
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-08-04 05:52 ---
OK, so assuming the fault was with rsync.planetmirror.com I retried this time
using rsync.kernel.org, but seem to have hit another problem:
After taking an eternity the
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-08-01 13:45 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I've applied the patch and the problem in generate_and_send_sums is
> indeed fixed, but it appears to have just moved onto another much graver
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-07-31 12:42 ---
I was under the impression that both sides needed it, because after I
patched one end, it still didn't work for me, but after I patched both ends,
it did. But may
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-07-31 09:43 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I was getting bitten by the same bug, im my case a 4.1GB file rolling over in
> 100MBs. I've applied the patch and the problem in generate_an
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-07-31 03:48 ---
I was getting bitten by the same bug, im my case a 4.1GB file rolling over in
100MBs. I've applied the patch and the problem in generate_and_send_sums is
indeed fixed,
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529
Summary: 32bit rollover problem rsyncing files greater than 4GB
in size
Product: rsync
Version: 2.6.2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity
2003-02-25T11:25:29 wim delvaux:
> I wonder how rsync works when files-to-be-updated are in flash
> (e.g. on IPAQ)
Same thing that happens anywhere, as long as the flash is presented
as a filesystem with POSIX semantics to a platform where rsync can
run. I use rsync for automatic backups of Memory
HI all,
I wonder how rsync works when files-to-be-updated are in flash (e.g. on IPAQ)
Ideally rsync should write to the flash as little as possible (because of max
reflash count)
SO ideally the following should happen
If file needs to be updated, the new file is created.
Then the old file is de
Dear Folks or the rsync club,
Just to inform some of you who may have read my
problem report about rsyncing files larger then 2gb.
I'm happy to inform you all that the upgrade from
2.3.1 to 2.4.6, has resolved the problem of rsyncing
files larger then 2gb and up to a 5.7gb as tested.
Thi
24 matches
Mail list logo
