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
Hi
I was wondering what happens if a file that is regularly synched but
seldom changes gets corrupted in the copy. As it seldom (or never)
changes the mod time will always be the same. But if the content
changes (bit flip, bad HD...) will rsync get this and synch it again?
Would I need the -c
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
