similar to: feature request, hardlink progress......

I've been using rsync for some time (years) to generate many hardlink snapshots per day; but I'm seeing an odd new problem today. the remote/destination host gets a file list from the source machine via ssh, and begins to write files until it "hangs". On this run only one file was transferred; on other runs many screenfulls went across + rsync --recursive --links --perms

Is there an r-tidy program? something that works similar to perl tidy? http://perltidy.sourceforge.net/ which takes program code and reformats white space with standard indentations and spacing? I did find a ruby based rtidy, but that is for html formatting. // George -- George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator <IXOYE><

Hi, After doing all I could find with the confiure script... I set some env too... export enable_R_static_lib=yes export want_R_static=yes export WANT_R_STATIC_TRUE=yes ./configure \ --prefix=${i} \ --enable-R-static-lib \ --enable-static \ --without-readline \ --without-iconv \ && make \ && make install \ && echo "R ${v}

Hi, I'm using rsync with link-dest to make snapshot like backups into /sawmill/backup/{hostname}/snapshot/{timestamp}/{root} I'm getting warnings that I don't understand... On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:00:01AM -0000, Cron Daemon wrote: >+ rsync --recursive --links --perms --times --group --owner --devices --numeric-ids --exclude '*.boot' --exclude '*.lock' --exclude

I've come across a handful of tests that fail at our site. I consider this one the worst because the process does not return. The patch below simply bypasss the test, but the errors in the out file are included as well. I suspect this is due to more or tighter ulimits on this system. But I'm not sure if this is result of different expectations (kernel/userland) of what should be done in

In the archives I see the question about encrypted destination and it's mostly answered with the --source-filter / --dest-filter patch by Kyle Jones. There are also some proposed updates to the patch. A lot of these posts 3 years old, is there plans or reasons not to include them in the main line code? // George -- George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator <IXOYE><

Hi -- congratulations on the 3.0 release! I'm trying to use rsync to manage a raw disk image file. rsync --checksum --perms --owner --group --sparse --partial --progress \ 192.168.80.189:/dev/rwd0d /u0510a/rwd0d.img skipping non-regular file "rwd0d" sent 20 bytes received 69 bytes 178.00 bytes/sec total size is 0 speedup is 0.00 rsync version 2.6.9 protocol version 29

Hello list On my server almost half of files are duplicated, and there are almost 100GB of data which is growing fast. I'm using weekly script to find duplicated files and replace them with hardlinks. Everything is fine as long as users aren't trying to edit and save some documents which have hardlinks. With samba 3.3 it seems that hardlinks aren't unlinked before file is saved.

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,

Dear all, I am looking for the status on the hardlink patches that were published on this list last february by Miklos Szeredi? I'd really like to have hardlink support in sftp. This would in turn enable hardlinks in sshfs and make incremental rsync backups to remote filesystems possible. can someone tell me if these patches will be incorporated in openssh? The patches can be found under

I do apologize if this has been discussed previously. Looking thru some of the archives I wasn't able to clearly answer my question, only find bits & pieces. Situation: I have a web & mail server (production) and a backup machine. The two machines are near identical as far as hardware & software installation. I use the backup machine as a mirror of the main. If for any reason

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws> wrote: > OK, first pass on TODO complete. .... > PERFORMANCE ---------------------------------------------------------- .... > Traverse just one directory at a time > > Traverse just one directory at a time. Tridge says it's possible. > > At the moment rsync reads the whole file list into memory at the >

GlusterFS WORM hard links will not be created OS is CentOS7 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20170707/aaea8dfc/attachment.html>

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws> wrote: > OK, first pass on TODO complete. .... This hardlink bug report is nearly 21 months old... So I took a look at it using 2.5.7. See below. > BUGS --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Fix hardlink reporting 2002/03/25 > (was: There seems

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

> 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

I'm running a mirror of several repositories that are fetched using separate rsync runs. Since some of those repositories are hosting related files, I'm using the hardlink utility[1] in order to save disk space. However, I've noticed an issue that may lead to potential file metadata inconsistencies when using hardlink. Consider the following scenario: - two repositories (rep_a 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. >> >>

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

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]