On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 02:42:47PM -0801, Jos Backus wrote:
...
+Batch mode can be used to apply the same set of updates to many identical
+systems\. Suppose one has a directory tree which is replicated on a number of
+hosts\. Now suppose some changes have to be made to this source directory
Thanks Dave for your comments, I have incorporated your feedback in the patch
below. Please review.
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:49:07AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
Hmm, I wonder if it would be easy to use rsync's compression library to
compress the whole flist, csum, and delta files on the fly.
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 11:23:33AM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
Thanks Dave for your comments, I have incorporated your feedback in the patch
below. Please review.
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:49:07AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
Hmm, I wonder if it would be easy to use rsync's compression
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:59:50PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
I'm not familiar with that area of the code, but I assume it would be
straightforward.
Good to hear that :)
Another idea just occurred to me: it would be nice to be able to stream all
the batch files over the network rather than
Thanks to Alberto Accomazzi and Dave Dykstra for their comments. Please have a
look at the updated version below.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:28:46AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
Refer people to the BATCH MODE section for more details.
Done.
The opening description should be easily
I'm sorry, but I don't have any familiarity with that part of rsync code
and don't have any ideas for you.
It isn't clear to me that the -z option makes sense for batch mode anyway.
Perhaps turning the rsync_* files into a gzipped tarball before sending
them to the remote machines would have
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:07:04AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
It isn't clear to me that the -z option makes sense for batch mode anyway.
Perhaps turning the rsync_* files into a gzipped tarball before sending
them to the remote machines would have better compression. I guess some
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:52:17AM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:07:04AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
It isn't clear to me that the -z option makes sense for batch mode anyway.
Perhaps turning the rsync_* files into a gzipped tarball before sending
them to the remote
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 06:19:56PM -0801, Jos Backus wrote:
OK, I may need help with the markup part though, so I'll post a rough draft
here first.
Here's my first attempt at improving the documentation of the batch mode
feature. This is the manpage only; I'll attempt to update the yodl file
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 12:02:31AM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
However, when I add ``-z'', rsync does fail when using a different target
directory.
Sadly, it turns out that my test was flawed. Batch mode doesn't quite work
with -z, even when the destination directory is not changed. Not really
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:05:15AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
One time I accidentally tried use --read-batch to directory that didn't
match the destination directory that was present when --write-batch created
the files, and then it core dumped at batch.c line 487:
I don't see a coredump in
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 03:41:36PM -0800, Jos Backus wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:05:15AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 04:37:53PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
On 17 Jan 2002, Jos Backus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When you get a chance, could you please look at
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:22:58PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
Yes, I'll look at doing some documentation. What about a paragraph titled
``About batch mode'' with a little explanation how it works, how it differs
from normal rsync operation and a small example?
Sounds like a good idea. Of
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 02:52:08PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
I applied the patch to the current development CVS and it gets further but
still has trouble. Using the above commands, the first --write-batch now
actually copies the files in addition to creating the rsync_* files.
However, when
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:55:24PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
I'm having second thoughts about merging the rsync+ / batch mode patch
into the main rsync release. It adds a lot of extra paths to the
code. I can see it will be useful for a few people, but I'm not sure
it's sufficiently general
15 matches
Mail list logo
