I've just started using rsync, and it's way cool. I checked the FAQ, the broken mailing list archive search function, and scanned the archives, but didn't see this mentioned. I presume it's a fairly common need: I'm mirroring files automatically and daily from one site to another, and anticipate the day when the size of the files may exceed the size of the destination disk. Rather than take up the whole disk (which is a root partition) and bring my destination system down, I'd prefer that the rsync process fail gracefully and not copy files when there's only a small amount of space left on the destination disk. I realize I could accomplish this by creating a partition on the destination disk, but I don't like partitions because changing them means taking down a production server and reformatting the drive. I took a look at quotas, which seem to fit the bill more closely, but either the documentation out there on them is weak or I'm just not smart enough to figure out whether they'll give me the assurance I'm looking for. How have other rsync users solved this problem?
Hi !> I realize I could accomplish this by creating a partition on the > destination disk, but I don't like partitions because changing them > means taking down a production server and reformatting the drive. I > took a look at quotas, which seem to fit the bill more closely, but > either the documentation out there on them is weak or I'm just not smart > enough to figure out whether they'll give me the assurance I'm looking > for.You don't like partitions ... OK ! Have a look at LVM (Logical Volume Management). With LVM you are able to resize a Logical Volume without backup and restore. LVM and Howto are available at http://www.sistina.com/lvm .> How have other rsync users solved this problem?One big partition is rather unflexible. So I recommend using LVM. You can only fill up one Logical Volume, not the whole root-Filesystem ... I think you only want to sync User-Data, not the system, so LVM could be one solution for you. Greetings Dirk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dirk Markwardt F?r die einen ist es Windows, Besselstr. 7 f?r die anderen die wahrscheinlich 38114 Braunschweig l?ngste Batchdatei der Welt d.markwardt@tu-bs.de
Dirk,> You don't like partitions ... OK ! Have a look at LVM (Logical Volume > Management). With LVM you are able to resize a Logical Volume without > backup and restore. LVM and Howto are available at > http://www.sistina.com/lvm .> One big partition is rather unflexible. So I recommend using LVM. You > can only fill up one Logical Volume, not the whole root-Filesystem ... > I think you only want to sync User-Data, not the system, so LVM could > be one solution for you.Thank you! You're right, I want to sync user data and LVM looks awesome; just what I need! Now if only Red Hat would create a root LVM partition during installation... but you can't have everything, otherwise Linux wouldn't be as much fun as it is. :)
quotas arent that bad really - check this doc out and you'll have it going in no time.. http://linuxnewbie.org/nhf/intel/tools/edquota.html jamie *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 2/2/2002 at 12:33 AM Anonymous wrote:>>I've just started using rsync, and it's way cool. >> >>I checked the FAQ, the broken mailing list archive search function, and >>scanned the archives, but didn't see this mentioned. I presume it's a >>fairly common need: >> >>I'm mirroring files automatically and daily from one site to another, >>and anticipate the day when the size of the files may exceed the size of >>the destination disk. Rather than take up the whole disk (which is a >>root partition) and bring my destination system down, I'd prefer that >>the rsync process fail gracefully and not copy files when there's only a >>small amount of space left on the destination disk. >> >>I realize I could accomplish this by creating a partition on the >>destination disk, but I don't like partitions because changing them >>means taking down a production server and reformatting the drive. I >>took a look at quotas, which seem to fit the bill more closely, but >>either the documentation out there on them is weak or I'm just not smart >>enough to figure out whether they'll give me the assurance I'm looking >>for. >> >>How have other rsync users solved this problem?
Martin Pool
2002-Apr-18 22:34 UTC
rsync urls and ssh (was Re: URL style syntax in destination?)
On 16 Apr 2002, Alberto Accomazzi <aaccomazzi@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:> what I meant to say is that while your example works, the following doesn't: > > $ rsync foo rsync://localhost/transfer/ > > you say they do but then use the :: syntax for uploads.You're quite right. We should fix that. -- Martin