I've got a strange issue that I'm hoping someone can help out with. Just installed 2.5.6 on a Redhat 8 system. Was doing a simple test from one local directory to another (in the root) with a couple of text files in the source. Using the following command line: rsync /directory1/ /directory2/ -v --recursive --stats After the first sync all files are copied properly, but then every sync afterwards continues to show the name of the text files because of the -v. The Stats shows a literal data of 0, so it would appear that it recognizes the data is in sync, but why does it show the filenames? I thought it should only show the names of the files that have changed? Also, if I run the same command above but add the -c (checksum) option, then it seems to work correctly. Then it does not show the names of the files with the -v option, unless they have changed. 1. Should I have to use the -c option? 2. And if not, any idea why it doesn't work without it? 3. I'm about to do a very large rsync from one local directory to a local samba mount (Windows 2003). So far my tests have shown the exact results as above with this samba share, unless I use -c. Is it a problem to use -c with a large rsync? I like to only see the changed files so I can parse this data for reporting purposes. Thanks, Max
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 09:57:39PM -0500, Max Kipness wrote:> The Stats shows a literal data of 0, so it would appear that it > recognizes the data is in sync, but why does it show the filenames? I > thought it should only show the names of the files that have changed?For enlightenment, see the description of the -t (--times) option in the man page. ..wayne..
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 09:57:39PM -0500, Max Kipness wrote: > > The Stats shows a literal data of 0, so it would appear that it > > recognizes the data is in sync, but why does it show the > filenames? I > > thought it should only show the names of the files that > have changed? > > For enlightenment, see the description of the -t (--times) > option in the man page. >Thanks for the info, that seemed to do the trick when rsyncing from a local dir to another local dir. However, I still have similar, but slightly different results when rsyncing from local dir to local samba mount. Some of the file names still show up, but not all. When using -vv, of course, the ones that showed up with -v do not state 'up to date', while the others do. Any other thoughts? Thanks, Max
> >>?>?The Stats shows a literal data of 0, so it would appear that it > >>?>?recognizes the data is in sync, but why does it show the > >>?filenames? I > >>?>?thought it should only show the names of the files that > >>?have changed? > >>? > >>?For enlightenment, see the description of the -t (--times) > >>?option in the man page. > >>? > >?Thanks for the info, that seemed to do the trick when > rsyncing from a > >?local dir to another local dir. > >? > >?However, I still have similar, but slightly different results when > >?rsyncing from local dir to local samba mount. Some of the file names > >?still show up, but not all. When using -vv, of course, the ones that > >?showed up with -v do not state 'up to date', while the others do. > > Windows file timestamps have a granularity of 2 seconds instead of 1. > > Use --modify-window=1 whenever rsyncing with samba mount filesystems.Thanks John, --modify-window=1 has fixed the problem. Max