rsync - May 2006 - batch mode and remote destination

Whats the reason that using a batch file can't be used with a remote
destination?

rsync --read-batch=foo /mysrc remote:/dest

gives

remote destination is not allowed with --read-batch


I need to push the same set of files to about 20 servers and because of
firewall rules, the 20 servers cannot pull from the central one.

Thanks
Kimo

On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 05:12:15PM -0700, kimor79@sonic.net
wrote:
> Whats the reason that using a batch file can't be used with a remote
> destination?
Because reading a batch file only involves starting a receiver process,
which modifies local files.  It's easy to run the command remotely,
however:

    cat foo | ssh remote rsync --read-batch=- /dest

Note the lack of a source arg with --read-batch since the source is the
batch.  The use of "cat" is to make it clear what machine the
"foo"
batch is coming from.  You could use a local redirection instead of a
pipe, if you prefer:

    ssh remote rsync --read-batch=- /dest <foo

This has the same effect as the first command (i.e. the contents of
"foo" is sent over the socket from a local file to the remote rsync
process).

..wayne..

On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 17:12 -0700, kimor79@sonic.net
wrote:
> rsync --read-batch=foo /mysrc remote:/dest
> gives
> remote destination is not allowed with --read-batch
And it shouldn't.  Isn't it a bigger problem that there is a source
argument specified even with --read-batch?  I think rsync should say
something like "the batch is the source, so specify only a
destination"
whether the destination is local or remote.  Currently, a remote
destination produces the above message and a local destination produces
a usage message that gives the user no clue about what the problem is.

The test that produces the usage message is commented "for remote
source, only single dest arg can remain".  I think this test should go
up higher, inside the if (!read_batch); perhaps the usage message could
be replaced by a meaningful error message.  A similar test that produces
"the batch is the source, so specify only a destination" should go
above
the current test for "remote destination is not allowed with
--read-batch".

Oh: and if a batch includes the entire file list (as opposed to just
those files that need to be updated), --read-batch and --list-only
should work nicely together.  Currently

rsync --read-batch=foo --list-only ignored-destination/

produces a listing and then a bunch of "skipping batched update"
messages; it should produce a listing without trying to update anything.
And these should do the same thing (in the second case, --list-only is
implied because there is no destination):

rsync --read-batch=foo --list-only
rsync --read-batch=foo

Matt