similar to: [patch] --link-dest

Please CC me. I'm not subscribed. Attached is a patch against 2.5.4pre1 CVS current to add the --link-dest option so rsync will create hardlinks for unchanged regular files to a directory on the destination. This is like --compare-dest except that the result is not a sparse tree. Also included is extension to --(ex|in)clude-from to allow - for stdin. Could one of the maintainers please add

Please CC me directly as i'm not on the list. I have attached a patch against latest CVS (cvs diff -u) that adds the following functionality. I can break it up if you would prefer it in pieces. Comments welcome. o add compare-perms option This creates a new inode for a file even if only the perms have changed. This way if a file outside of destdir is hardlinked to a dentry inside

Hi all. I have just finished a small patch that adds support for multiple --compare-dest or --link-dest args. Its primary usage is to do incremental backups on top of eachother. (My current backup system stores each incremental as a single diff of the latest full.) Example: First full backup: rsync -a somedir full-20040415/ First incremental: rsync -a --compare-dest=../full-20040415 \

Recently various needs for multiple version handling were discussed and I put forward a plan of mine. Subsequently the proposal for a --compare-file=<FILE> switch had support, so I have implemented this. I have also implemented an experimental --compare-auto which decides which file to match against using a rule. Instructions for patch: 1. Install rsync-2.5.6 source 2. "patch -p1

This patch adds the --link-by-hash=DIR option, which hard links received files in a link farm arranged by MD4 file hash. The result is that the system will only store one copy of the unique contents of each file, regardless of the file's name. Anyone have an example of an MD4 collision so I can test that case? :) Patch Summary: -1 +1 Makefile.in -0 +304 hashlink.c (new)

Hi, How about adding now option '--backup-only' that means making backups only and don't change any destination files? (I posted similar patch a month ago, but the patch was made for nightly snapshot of 20020808, which was tooo old! Laugh at me...) I want to use rsync with LVM snapshot to make incremental backups like below: 1) Make LVM snapshot of file system and mount it.

This patch adds the --link-by-hash=DIR option, which hard links received files in a link farm arranged by MD4 file hash. The result is that the system will only store one copy of the unique contents of each file, regardless of the file's name. (rev 4) * Updated for committed robust_rename() patch, other changes in CVS. (rev 3) * Don't link empty files. * Roll over to new file when

This patch adds the --link-by-hash=DIR option, which hard links received files in a link farm arranged by MD4 file hash. The result is that the system will only store one copy of the unique contents of each file, regardless of the file's name. (rev 3) * Don't link empty files. * Roll over to new file when filesystem maximum link count is reached. * If link fails for another reason, leave

On 5 Jan 2005, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 18:24 +0100, Robert Lemmen wrote: > > hi rusty, > > > > i read on some webpage about rsync and debian that you wrote a patch to > > rsync that let's it uses heuristics when deciding which local file to > > use. could you tell me whether this is planned to be included in

This patch adds the --link-by-hash=DIR option, which hard links received files in a link farm arranged by MD4 file hash. The result is that the system will only store one copy of the unique contents of each file, regardless of the file's name. (rev 5) * Fixed silly logic error. (rev 4) * Updated for committed robust_rename() patch, other changes in CVS. (rev 3) * Don't link empty

This patch adds the --link-by-hash=DIR option, which hard links received files in a link farm arranged by MD4 file hash. The result is that the system will only store one copy of the unique contents of each file, regardless of the file's name. (rev 2) * This revision is actually against CVS HEAD (I didn't realize I was working from a stale rsync'd CVS). * Apply permissions after

I have attached a patch that supports a new "--direct-write" option. The result of using this option is to write directly to the destination files, instead of a temporary file first. The reason this patch is needed is for rsyncing to a device where the device is full or nearly full. Say that I am writing to a device that has 1 Meg free, and a 2 meg file on that device is out of date.

There's a rather old bug report in Debian's bug tracking system (see http://bugs.debian.org/27126) about wanting to be able to specify the maximum file size, as well as the minimum file size. Here's the text: Sometimes, it's useful to specify a file size range one is interested in. For example, I'd like to keep an up-to-date mirror of Debian, but I currently

Dear rsync folks, I'd like to request/suggest that cli options to set TCP send/receive buffers be added to rsync client-side. Summary: I'm aware that a daemon's config-file can set socket options for the server side (e.g. SO_SNDBUF, SO_RCVBUF). That is useful. But when trying to get high-throughput rsync over long paths (i.e. large bandwidth*delay product), since

In an effort to get my long-desired move-files functionality into rsync, I have created a version of my patch that runs as an extra pass at the end of the processing. This results in a simpler set of changes to rsync. I still think it would be nice to have incremental deletions during large transfers (as my first patch provides), but acceptance of this patch would relegate such quibbling to a

> Just curious: what about the rsync+ patch? Thanks for the reminder. I've just committed Jos's rsync+ patch onto the "branch_mbp_rsyncplus_merge" branch. If it works OK and nobody screams I will move it across onto the main tree tomorrow or Wednesday. I see the patch doesn't add documentation about the new options to the man page, so we should fix that in the future.

Why does --link-dest assume -ugp ? This patch removes those assumptions allowing mortal users to use --link-dest for back ups. (I think... I didn't look at the large picture.) Joe *** generator.c Thu Aug 29 09:44:55 2002 --- ../generator.c Tue Nov 4 09:12:59 2003 *************** *** 42,47 **** --- 42,50 ---- extern int modify_window; extern char *compare_dest; extern int

Hello, I found the reason why "refuse options" is ignored on the server side. When then 5th argument (int val) in the poptOption struct is set to zero, the parsing function poptGetNextOpt() just continues with the next arg, without returning. So check_refuse_options() is simply not called in such cases. The attached patch makes "refuse options" work with checksum and

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7565 Summary: --check-point=<TIME> +options.c.patch +generator.c.patch Product: rsync Version: 3.0.7 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org

When using --link-dest, this block of code in skip_file causes new copies of files to be created if source and destination file permissions differ, even if -p -o and -g haven't been specified. if (link_dest) { if((st->st_mode & ~_S_IFMT) != (file->mode & ~_S_IFMT)) { return 0; } if (st->st_uid != file->uid || st->st_gid != file->gid) { return 0; } }