https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
Wayne Davison changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
--- Comment #1 from Dave Yost d...@yost.com ---
Something like this would be useful:
rsync foo s1: --add-destinations s2:dir s3:dir
or
rsync foo s1: --to s1: s2:dir s3:~
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Korb rs...@sanitarium.net ---
These would be separate rsync (and ssh) connections. What use case would
justify bundling them together into a single rsync session? The only benefit
over multiple exections of rsync would
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
--- Comment #3 from Dave Yost d...@yost.com ---
What I'm after is an argument syntax that supports copying to multiple
destinations.
It's fine by me if rsync executes a multiple-destination command via multiple,
sequential copies.
I am not
How would this be different/better than
rsync options source {dest1 dest2 dest3}
? (The brackets cause bash to repeat the command line for each argument
inside the brackets.)
The only thing I can see is what Kevin pointed out about figuring out
which transfer was involved if an error condition
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Korb rs...@sanitarium.net ---
If you want to run them in parallel then use gnu parallel. It would keep the
specified unmber of jobs running until it runs out of new jobs.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
--- Comment #5 from Dave Yost d...@yost.com ---
This is not about running them in parallel.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
