similar to: bogus hardlinks bug?

I download rsync.2.5.6, configure, make clean, but make gives this warning: "io.c", line 653: warning: shift count negative or too big: >> 32 "io.c", line 653: warning: shift count negative or too big: >> 32 "io.c", line 653: warning: shift count negative or too big: >> 32 "io.c", line 653: warning: shift count negative or too big:

Hi, I am running rsync on an embedded linux (ppc) like this: rsync -avvv sun::file-system/ /rsyncexperiment Where sun is a solaris machine that has rsync: rsync version 2.5.7 protocol version 26 Copyright (C) 1996-2002 by Andrew Tridgell and others <http://rsync.samba.org/> Capabilities: 64-bit files, socketpairs, hard links, symlinks, batchfiles, no IPv6, 64-bit system inums,

Wayne, Please consider the attached patch. This applies to the current CVS, and is independant of patches/local-batch.diff. As a matter of fact, I'm sure it would conflict heavily with local-batch.diff. This version of batch mode has a couple distinguishing features: Write-batch records (almost) the entire sender side of the conversation into one file. ("Almost" because it has

People of cygwin & rsync, I recently attempted to get cygwin and rsync working to solve a backup/mirroring need in my computer life. Well, as you might guess, I ran into a little but of trouble. Strangely enough, rsync seemed to be regularly hanging when I attempted to do a "get" (sycronize a remote to a local dir). Well, considering I want to automate this, that was not going

> 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.

Mark II of the patch set. The first patch (dynsumlen2.patch) increments the protocol version to support per-file dynamic block checksum sizes. It is a prerequisite for varsumlen2.patch. varsumlen2.patch implements per-file dynamic block and checksum sizes. The current block size calculation only applies to files between 7MB and 160MB setting the block size to 1/10,0000 of the file length for a

ok, so this is not entirely an rsync question. but, it seems the 'crowd' most familiar w/ hard-linking are the rsync crowd. so ... i'm doing rsync + incremental backups to a local drive. the incremental steps, currently, use the rsync REMOTE_DIR OLD_DIR ... time passes ... cp -al OLD_DIR NEW_DIR rsync REMOTE_DIR NEW_DIR approach. all works great. i'd *like* to be

Subject should be enough: are hardlinks supported when rsyncing over ssh? I know that I cannot do anything with hardlinks if I'm using SSHFS over FUSE, I was wondering if rsync is plagued by the same problem. Matt

In working on trying to fix the crash issue from my last email I had enabled LMTP delivery to try it out instead of using the LDA. I have discovered that when a single piece of email is to be delivered to multiple users the message is being hard linked instead of copied into each mail box. This is a major problem that makes LMTP unusable in an environment where each mailbox has it's own UID

On 17/07/2020 10:30, Alessandro Baggi wrote: > > Il 17/07/20 10:54, Karl Vogel ha scritto: >> It depends on the size of the variables in the structure used by the >> stat() call.? In ext4, the "links" variable is an unsigned 16-bit >> integer, >> so you have your limit of 64k or so.? I've worked with systems where >> the limit was a signed 16-bit

Hi, Dovecotters. In the Maildir code, dovecot-0.99.10/src/lib-storage/index/maildir/maildir-copy.c, I see that hardlinks are used. It seems that (line 185) if MAILDIR_COPY_WITH_HARDLINKS is exported, then copying is attempted by using link. Having problems reading the source / flow of control, I resort to this list. When a file is linked, the mtime is naturally kept on the destination. This

I just discovered that dovecot supports copying messages via hard-linking. I have a huge mailbox hierarchy of existing messages that I'd prefer to store that way. Is there a simple way to transform non-hard-linked storage to hard-linked? TIA, -- Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

hello, I try to use the deliver dovecot with hardlinks. in command line, it's work with this command /usr/lib/dovecot/deliver -p themail -d user when i send mail with postfix. I received the mail for all users but it doesn't create hardlinks. i check with command line md5sum themail it same for all mail . but it don't create hardlinks. in my master.cf dovecot unix -

Hello list, Excuse me for my poor english. I have updated on a test server dovecot 2.0.13 to dovecot 2.1.1. All works fine, but with the new version it seems that dovecot don't do hardlinks when deliver a message to multiple users. I have checked my config and the only rule I can see aboout that is maildir_copy_with_hardlinks = yes in /etc/dovecot/conf.d/10-mail.conf My mail location

Hi all, any ideas? Especially point n.1 (no hardlink when sending the same email to multiple addresses) confuse me a bit. Searching in old messages I even stumbled on some users stating that, using Dovecot LMTP server, they achieved what I want (one messagge, multiple hardlinks), but I am _already_ using LMTP with no avail... Regards. On 27/06/15 18:18, Gionatan Danti wrote: > Hi all,

-----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. > > Does someone know if newer dovecot versions change anything in this regard? LMTP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Gionatan Danti wrote: > On 14/07/15 08:17, Steffen Kaiser wrote: >> 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

On 14/07/15 12:26, Steffen Kaiser wrote: > > You asked about "newer dovecot versions", v2.2 does so. > Fair enough :) So, with v2.2+ the hardlink approach is irremediably gone, at least with LMTP (and without relying to SiS)? -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti at assyoma.it - info at assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

On November 26, 2015 3:28:22 PM Gionatan Danti <g.danti at assyoma.it> wrote: > Il 26-11-2015 15:15 John R. Dennison ha scritto: >> You are strongly encouraged to update that CentOS system. Current is >> 6.7 (released some 3 months ago) and dovecot-2.0.9-19. > > Ouch! I copied outdated information from my old post. > My current system _is_ CentOS 6.7 with dovecot

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