similar to: batch-mode fixes [was: [PATCH] fix read-batch SEGFAULT]

rsync+ is ready to go onto HEAD. Could Jos or somebody else who's used the feature before please prepare a few paragraphs for the manpage explaining how they work? Either send a patch to the .yo files or just plain text. Thanks, -- Martin

I just took a look at the 2.5.5 codebase to see how easy it would be to write a little driver script that downloads a big directory tree from an rsync daemon the chunky way (get a list of a module's subdirectories and do the transfer by subdirectory). The reason for doing this is obvious when you have large directory trees, as is the case for many of us. Unfortunately the way list_only is

I was at first, but then removed it. The results were still insufficiently fast. > Were you using the -c option of rsync? It sounds like you > were and it's > extremely slow. I knew somebody who once went to > extraordinary lengths to > avoid the overhead of -c, making a big patch to rsync to > cache checksums, > when all he had to do was not use -c.

Hi, I am thinking about a non-standard usage of rsync (at least not mentioned in the man file) I want to synchronized my collegues home directories(trees) each night AND store rsync's internal updating commands (reversed) to be able to restore the state of a directory the day before. This would require - saving the internal updating commands in a separate directory - reversing these commands

I am puzzled as to why I can't get the option --link-dest to work properly. When I use this option when both source and destinations are on a local filesystem the hard-linking of the target against the link-dest directory does work, but when the source is a remote directory (via ssh or rsync server) hard links are not created. I suspect it has something to do with setting the correct

I'm having second thoughts about merging the rsync+ / batch mode patch into the main rsync release. It adds a lot of extra paths to the code. I can see it will be useful for a few people, but I'm not sure it's sufficiently general to justify being there. Dave? -- Martin

> 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.

Dear all, I've been trying to track down a problem with timeouts when pulling data from an rsync daemon and I have now run out of any useful ideas. The problem manifests itself when I try to transfer a large directory tree on a slow client machine. What happens then is that the client rsync process successfully receives the list of files from the server, then begins checking the local

I, too, was disappointed with rsync's performance when no changes were required (23 minutes to verify that a system of about 3200 files was identical). I wrote a little client/server python app which does the verification, and then hands rsync the list of files to update. This reduced the optimal case compare time to under 30 seconds. Here's what it does, and forgive me if these sound

Wayne, I have been using the rsync snapshot from 1/25 for the last few days and everything seems quite solid so far. I include below a few nit-picks in case you're looking for thing to tidy up. I'm also looking forward to hearing news about the --filter option. I'm thinking it is going to be very useful for backup purposes. What I would want to be able to do is, on a

Hello! As I was found rsync do not detect file renaming. If I just copy my backup.0.tgz (many Mbytes in size having it's md5) to backup.1.tgz (which will be equial in size and md5) it will be the same file in fact... Rsync will delete old file (backup.0.tgz) on the receiving side and download new one (backup.1.tgz). I do not think there are any difficulties to detect this situation and

Is there a good place to get information about the list of all possible output and error messages rsync generates? Or should I just muck around the source code (which I haven't looked at yet) and find them? I am doing something where I would like to parse rsync's output using Perl into a set of data structures. I already have something that works under normal conditions. Eventually

Rsync list: Alberto and I have done a couple more exchanges by private email, and we found that he wasn't turning on my include/exclude optimization in his test because he had an "exclude" directive in rsyncd.conf. He has now removed that and run the test again. His very interesting results are below with my comments. Note that his case is rather pathological because he's got

Here's the latest version of the batch mode cleanup patch. Index: batch.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/rsync/batch.c,v retrieving revision 1.12 diff -u -r1.12 batch.c --- batch.c 24 Jan 2002 08:09:46 -0000 1.12 +++ batch.c 6 Feb 2002 19:47:57 -0000 @@ -8,55 +8,38 @@ #include "rsync.h" #include <time.h> -char

I just noticed that there is an extra blank line in the output generated by rsync when the --dry-run (-n) flag is used. This seems to have started with 2.6.0. Is this desired? The reason why I'm asking is because I use scripts that parse the output from rsync and little modifications in verbosity can make or break things easily. Thanks, -- Alberto [ads@localhost bin]$ rsync-2.5.7

Bert, Hi. If you are still interested in your rsync+ project, changes for which have evidently been (and are, perhaps, still being?) submitted to the official, upstream rsync version, you may want to add the following feature, proffered below, in order to conduce a little greater batch mode usage flexibility primarily for those with above average security concerns. Currently (at least in the

Currently the --write-batch option in addition to creating the batch files also syncs the target tree. I'm not sure whether this is always desired. So far the only way I have been able to come up with to prevent the target tree from being populated is the patch below; however, the top-level target directory is still created, so it is not complete. Does this sound like a worthwile addition to

There is a new patch named "delete-during.diff" in the CVS "patches" dir. This patch adds the ability for rsync to incrementally delete files in each directory during the normal course of the transfer rather than doing a separate delete scan either before or after the transfer. The patch renames the current --delete option into --delete-before and makes --delete behave in the

I have downloaded and built rsync 2.6.0 on our HP ProLiant DL380-G3 servers (2 Hyperthread processors, 4 GB RAM, 840 GB Hard Disk, etc. etc.) running Red Hat 8 with the latest errata kernel (2.4.20-28smp) and updates from HP for RH8. rsync is run in daemon mode from xinetd. When doing transfers the machine requesting the transfer starts to run out of memory. After every rsync transfer there

Our project is considering supporting a mirror site which is going to be off the network (essentially a stand-alone mirror for a local LAN in a place without internet connectivity). So I am in the (unfortunate) position of having to decide how to do this (or if this can be done at all). The current plan is to set up a PC running linux with a 120GB drive and a DVD reader on the remote site and