Hi,
I am trying to gain understanding about which of the two methodologies for
rsync operation is better . I don’t have statistical information if there is
any performance difference for the same set of data. I also want to build some
kind of error handling/control to notify users for failures
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Satish Shukla wrote:
b) pulling the data from source to destination ( i.e. running
rsync from destination machine)
The main reason to pull is with hard linking of the saved files, e.g.
rsnapshot - only possible with a pull operation. Security is also a little
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Actually, rsync is completely capable of doing hard links
(--link-dest) in push or pull mode. It is rsnapshot that artificially
imposes that limitation to rsync.
On 01/16/12 09:55, L. V. Lammert wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Satish Shukla wrote:
On 2012-01-16 3:03 PM, Kevin Korb k...@sanitarium.net wrote:
On 01/16/12 09:55, L. V. Lammert wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Satish Shukla wrote:
b) pulling the data from source to destination ( i.e.
running rsync from destination machine)
The main reason to pull is with hard linking
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- From http://rsnapshot.org/faq.html:
Q: Can I set the snapshot_root to a remote SSH path? I want to push
my backups to a remote server, rather than pull them from a remote server.
A:
Rsnapshot does not support a remote snapshot root via
On 2012-01-16 4:06 PM, Kevin Korb k...@sanitarium.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- From http://rsnapshot.org/faq.html:
Q: Can I set the snapshot_root to a remote SSH path?
The OP didn't specify over SSH (... I'm doing this to an NFS mount) -
that came into the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As far as rsync is concerned an NFS mount is neither push or pull. It
is simply a local copy with one path probably being a lot slower than
the other. Doing a local copy also means that you are stuck with
- --whole-file.
On 01/16/12 16:20, Charles
