search for: hardlinked

Hi, I detected a silly behaviour of rsync when new hardlinks of already synced files are created: Scenario: There are a local directory and a equal remote directory created by former run of rsync. Create a hardlink from a already existing file (both inside the local directory). If this hardlink has a filename with comes before the original filename when both are sorted in alphabetic order,

...tached Debian bug report, which includes a helpful bug-reproducing shell script; I've confirmed this still happens with 3.0.9. Paul Slootman On Tue 27 Mar 2012, Ian Jackson wrote: > Package: rsync > Version: 3.0.7-2 > > With rsync --link-dest, if two different source files (not hardlinked > to each other) are both candidates for being hardlinked from files of > the same name in the link-dest directory, both of them may be so > hardlinked. The effect is that on the destination the two files > become hardlined to each other even though they are not hardlinked > togethe...

On 30 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Gionatan Danti <g.danti at assyoma.it> wrote: > > So, let me do a straigth question: is someone using dovecot/LMTP with hardlinking? To me, this seems a _very_ important feature, and I wonder if I am doing something wrong or if the feature (hardlink+sieve) simply does not exists. Hardlink+Sieve has never worked. The fix is a bit complicated. Here's my

Hi list, many moons ago I asked about preserving hardlink between identical messages when pigeonhole (for sieve filtering) was used. The reply was that, while hardlink worked well for non-filtered messages, using pigeonhole broke the hardlink (ie: some message-specific data was appended to the actual mail file). Here you can find the original thread:

There is a small configure glitch for rsync-2.5.5rc1 on Apple Darwin (== MacOS X) [ uname -a Darwin darwin.math.utah.edu 5.2 Darwin Kernel Version 5.2: Fri Dec 7 21:39:35 PST 2001; root:xnu/xnu-201.14.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc ] the config.h file gets the line #define INET6 1 The link then fails with /usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols: _freehostent _getipnodebyaddr

Hi, hardlinking (-H) works perfectly while using a syntax like -avhxSDH <SRC> <DEST> Now I have to mirror multiple SRC directories which contain hardlinks. e. g: src1/a is a hardlink to src2/b -RavhxSDH SRC1 SRC2 DEST does not preserve hardlink a and b in DEST. Is there any chance to do that? Thanks lopiuh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> centos 7.x is latest, so if you need help upgrade make a bug report to > centos, not waste your time here since you choiced a precompiled > problem, reporting here 7s helpfull if you use dovecot compiled with > the latest version here, this migth be a unknown bug you then have > found, but not if you use precompiled problems, then report to the > maintainers of such software

Hi all, I have some questions about hardlinks, alternate storage and compression. I already scanned the list for related information and I have an idea of how things works, but I would like to have a definite answer. System spec: - CentOS 6.6 x64 - dovecot-2.0.9-8.el6_6.4.x86_64 RPM package/version - sdbox mail store 1) About hardlinks: when sending the same message to two different

Il 23-12-2019 12:04 Gionatan Danti ha scritto: > On 19/12/19 11:08, Gionatan Danti wrote: >> Hi list, >> many moons ago I asked about preserving hardlink between identical >> messages when pigeonhole (for sieve filtering) was used. >> >> The reply was that, while hardlink worked well for non-filtered >> messages, using pigeonhole broke the hardlink (ie:

Hi Javier, thanks for your reply. I already checked SIS and, while interesting, is not what I want, because: 1) it can be difficult to restore a single message/attachment from a backup 2) only the attachments, and not the entire messages, are deduped. Message-based hardlinks really exists for a reason. The good news is that I found _why_ they are not working: it depends from how dovecot and

I'm copying a partition that has a bunch of hardlink based snapshots (-aPH). I think there's about 250,000 files in each backup and between 100 and 200 snapshots. Earlier today, I saw the files had completed and it was making all the hardlinks. I thought it would be "not long" but it's been making hardlinks for 12 hours (at least). There's only 36Gb in snapshot, the

Hi all, I have some updates on the hard-link discussion. First, let me explain that I installed a test machine with CentOS 7.1 and dovecot/pigeonhole version 2.2.10-4 and the results where identical on what I had on CentOS 6.7 and dovecot 2.0.9-19 The bottom line is that hardlinking works only when no, or at most only one, RCPT have sieve filtering. For example: - if no RCPT has sieve

The rsync 2.5.6 TODO file mentions the need for hard link test cases. Here is one in which a linked file is unnecessarily transferred in full. # Setup initial directories mkdir src dest dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024 count=10000 of=src/a 2>/dev/null rsync -a src/. dest/. ln src/a src/b # At this point, a & b exist in src; only a exists in dest. rsync -aHv src/. dest/.

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9749 Summary: hardlinkes files are copies instat of make a link Product: rsync Version: 3.0.9 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org ReportedBy: dieter.ferdinand at

...g scenario: - two repositories (rep_a and rep_b) are mirrored that initially have a file in common. - after rsync mirrored the files, there are two identical copies in my mirror - hardlink detects those copies and links them together - the file attributes (permissions, ownership, mtime, etc.) of a hardlinked file in rep_a change upstream - rsync detects this change, updates the destination file in-place (it doesn't break the hardlinks) which leads to an inconsistant view of the file attributes in rep_b - depending on the order of the mirroring commands, the second rsync job for rep_b might reverse...

Hello, I have an el-cheapo shared hosting account on Dreamhost, and have had it for a very long time. For the most part everything usually works fairly well, considering I do keep a lot of folders, and mail, on some of my accounts. They are running dovecot, but still don't have a response as to the version, or doveconf -n output yet. My problem is, one of my most used folders, which was

...alled "b.txt". 3. Use "rsync -z --numeric-ids -a -H --inplace --delete - --delete-excluded --stats --progress -v --itemize-changes SOURCE DESTINATION" to replicate the directory. 4. Verify that a new directory is created, with two files "a.txt" and "b.txt", hardlinked. Nice. 5. Now delete the original "b.txt" and create a new file "b.txt", with new DIFFERENT content. So you now have two different files in the source. 6. Rerun the "rsync" script. 7. In the destination directory you will have two files, "a.txt" and "...

On 14/07/15 08:17, Steffen Kaiser wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Gionatan Danti wrote: > >> On the other hand, private (per-user) sieve file works without >> interfering with hardlinks. In a similar manner, disabling sieve also >> permits dovecot to create multiple hardlinks for a single message. >> >>

...existing file has been modified and is now "new" (and not the n'th hardlink) in the image. This file is copied to the "current" directory. A hardlink pointing to the file in lastimg is not created. If a new file has been created in between the dirvish runs it perfectly gets hardlinked in the "current" directory. Is that intented behaviour? You can easily reproduce the issue with the following commands: # create source dir mkdir -p /tmp/rsync/src # create 1st file echo 1 > src/a # create 1st "backup" image rsync -vaH --delete --numeric-ids -x /tmp/rsync/...

Hi list, I have a little script that uses rysnc and hardlink to perform backups. Some days ago a friend told me that rsync could crash if the hardlink limit is reached. I know (and tested) that for ext4 the max number of hardlink for a single file is 65000 but I can't get a limit on XFS. Due to the fact that I can't get good resources from google search, I tried to reach its limit