On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:52:45AM -0800, Ben Escoto wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 09:17:03AM -0800, Mike Rubel wrote:
> > > CB> Of course, a major issue with --inplace is that the file will be
> > > CB> in an intermediate state if rsync is killed mid-transfer. Rsync
> > > CB> currently e
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 09:17:03AM -0800, Mike Rubel wrote:
> > CB> Of course, a major issue with --inplace is that the file will be
> > CB> in an intermediate state if rsync is killed mid-transfer. Rsync
> > CB> currently ensures that every file is either the original or new.
> >
> > I'm c
2003-02-05T07:41:22 Craig Barratt:
> The trick is that when --inplace is specified the block matching
> algorithm (on the sender) would only match blocks at or after that
> block's location (on the receiver).
... and only when the source block in question remains unchanged in
the new file?
> No p
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Ben Escoto wrote:
> > "CB" == Craig Barratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote the following on Wed, 05 Feb 2003 04:41:22 -0800
>
> CB> Of course, a major issue with --inplace is that the file will be
> CB> in an intermediate state if rsync is killed mid-transfer. Rsy
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Craig Barratt wrote:
> Of course, a major issue with --inplace is that the file will be
> in an intermediate state if rsync is killed mid-transfer. Rsync
> currently ensures that every file is either the original or new.
I hate silent corruption. Much better to have things e
> "CB" == Craig Barratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote the following on Wed, 05 Feb 2003 04:41:22 -0800
CB> Of course, a major issue with --inplace is that the file will be
CB> in an intermediate state if rsync is killed mid-transfer. Rsync
CB> currently ensures that every file is eith
> > Is it possible to tell rsync to update the blocks of the target file=20
> > 'in-place' without creating the temp file (the 'dot file')? I can=20
> > guarantee that no other operations are being performed on the file at=20
> > the same time. The docs don't seem to indicate such an option.
>
>
jw schultz wrote:
>
> I was thinking more in terms of no block relocation at all.
> Checksums only match if at the same offset. The receiver simply
> discards (or never gets) info about blocks that are
> unchanged. It would just lseek and write with a possible
> truncate at the end.
This would
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:47:49PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2003, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The reason why in-place updating is difficult is that
> > rsync expects the unchanged blocks in the old file may be
> > relocated. Data inserted into or removed from the file
On 4 Feb 2003, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason why in-place updating is difficult is that
> rsync expects the unchanged blocks in the old file may be
> relocated. Data inserted into or removed from the file does
> not require the rest of the file to be retransmitted.
> Unchang
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:37:26PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2003-02-04T14:29:48 Kenny Gorman:
> > Is it possible to tell rsync to update the blocks of the target file
> > 'in-place' without creating the temp file (the 'dot file')? I can
> > guarantee that no other operations are being perfor
2003-02-04T14:29:48 Kenny Gorman:
> Is it possible to tell rsync to update the blocks of the target file
> 'in-place' without creating the temp file (the 'dot file')? I can
> guarantee that no other operations are being performed on the file at
> the same time. The docs don't seem to indicate
12 matches
Mail list logo
