Displaying 20 results from an estimated 200 matches similar to: "Modifications to NOT recursively make_backup"
2003 Sep 05
1
new option suggestion '--backup-only'
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.
2003 Apr 18
0
[Fwd: Xinetd 2.3.10 Memory Leaks]
I just submitted a PR for this (haven't even gotten the confirmation
email), but since not everyone tracks the GNATS CVS distribution, I
figured that I'd send it here as well.
-----Forwarded Message-----
> From: Steve Grubb <linux_4ever@yahoo.com>
> To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
> Subject: Xinetd 2.3.10 Memory Leaks
> Date: 18 Apr 2003 16:18:36 +0000
>
>
>
2004 Feb 10
3
rsync 2.6.1cvs dumps core when preserve_hard_links and backup
I tried rsync 2.6.1cvs on my FreeBSD 4.X boxes.
It dumps core when preserve_hard_links and backup.
And SUPPORT_HARD_LINKS is true.
rsync -avH --delete --backup --backup-dir=/some/backup/dir \
srchost::dir/ dir/
The core says...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0 0x80536c0 in keep_backup
2015 Jan 23
0
rsync 3.1.1 wrong transfer of app packages using --backup
Dear All,
I found a workaround for the corrupted backup app package files though there is probably a more intelligent way.
When the destination is empty or missing (rather than an update)
rsync.c calls make_backup and returns 1 when it encounters
if (x_lstat(fname, &sx.st, NULL) < 0)
return 1;
the calling code in rsync.c:
if ( make_backups > 0 && overwriting_basis) {
2002 Jan 07
0
rsync-2.5.1 / updated syscall.c "const" patch
Operating System: OpenVMS ALPHA V7.3
Compiler: Compaq C T6.5
Compiler switches: /WARN=ENABLE=(LEVEL4, QUESTCODE)
syscall.c is missing the "const" qualifiers for several of it's
functions. This patch should supercede the previous patch I submitted.
This was discovered while working on resovling the conflicts between
signed and unsigned values.
-John
wb8tyw@qsl.network
Personal
2017 Apr 13
1
[Bug 12741] New: stop rsync on "No space left on device"
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12741
Bug ID: 12741
Summary: stop rsync on "No space left on device"
Product: rsync
Version: 3.1.2
Hardware: x86
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P5
Component: core
Assignee: wayned at samba.org
2023 Feb 01
1
Hanging, uninterruptible smbd-process in "D"-state
Hi,
tanks for the answer. Since /proc/<PID>/stack is a stack the topmost
element should be the task where it got stuck which is:
rwsem_down_write_slowpath which waits for getting a write lock semaphore:
cat /proc/10193/stack
[<0>] rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x2e2/0x620
[<0>] nfs_rmdir+0x117/0x1b0 [nfs]
[<0>] vfs_rmdir+0x7c/0x1b0
[<0>] do_rmdir+0x216/0x230
2003 May 21
2
patch to avoid race condition in rsync 2.5.6
There is a small race condition in rsync 2.5.6. When the transfer is
finished, and the file is moved into place, there is a short time
period where the new file is in place with the wrong permissions.
When using rsync on a busy email server to replace the exim config
file with a new file, exim will produce several complaints in that
short period. This small patch fixes the problem, by making
2004 Jun 21
0
Problem found and fixed with --update
Greetings, all.
A co-worker has found a problem with using the '--update' option of rsync, but
happily he was able to fix it. Since I'm the one who's subscribed to the
rsync mailing list, I'm the one that gets to share it with y'all. ;)
A snippet of his email to our developers describes the problem:
> Subject: rsync fixed: --update bug
> Date: Friday 18 June
2008 Dec 03
0
Unhandled Page Fault ....Help Me...{unixODBC is Crashing in Wine}
>2 0x60b51b11 function_return_ex+0x281(level=3, handle=<register ESI not in topmost frame>, ret_code=-1, save_to_diag=0) [/root/unixODBC-2.2.12/DriverManager/__info.c:4791] in libodbc.so.1 (0x7ed37dbc)
Are you running as root? If so, this may be the cause of your problem.
If you are running as Oracle, why did you install the ODBC as root?
>
>I request to fix this issue where
2016 Jan 12
4
[Bug 11668] New: incorrect/inconsistent behavior when --backup-dir is on a full filesystem
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11668
Bug ID: 11668
Summary: incorrect/inconsistent behavior when --backup-dir is
on a full filesystem
Product: rsync
Version: 3.1.2
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: core
2007 Apr 14
0
[963] branches/wxruby2/wxwidgets_282/doc/textile/dialog.txtl: Added a few missing methods and cleaned up a bit.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /><style type="text/css"><!--
#msg dl { border: 1px #006 solid; background: #369; padding:
2002 Jul 24
0
couple of minor fixes to rsync 2.5.5
Dear friends!
I really appriciate the great job you did on rsync package and hope for its
further improvement and development. It works great in our pretty complex
environment and helps us a lot in our daily duties.
But we've run into couple of small inconveniences.
First one:
We use rsyncd to propagate a tree of html files among several web-servers.
That files are generated on the fly and
2011 Oct 03
2
patch: Replace many usleep and some sleep calls with nanosleep
Description: Replace many usleep and some sleep calls with nanosleep.
usleep is stated in its manual page as removed by POSIX.
Contrary to its predecessors, nanosleep semantics is well
defined. The replacement, which is mostly in drivers, is
untested. Supplements http://bugs.debian.org/633791.
Last-Update: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:04:48 +0300
Index:
2011 Aug 23
0
[PATCH] Btrfs: fix an oops when deleting snapshots
We can reproduce this oops via the following steps:
$ mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb7
$ mount /dev/sdb7 /mnt/btrfs
$ for ((i=0; i<3; i++)); do btrfs sub snap /mnt/btrfs /mnt/btrfs/s_$i; done
$ rm -fr /mnt/btrfs/*
$ rm -fr /mnt/btrfs/*
then we''ll get
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2264!
[...]
Call Trace:
[<ffffffffa05578c7>] btrfs_rmdir+0xf7/0x1b0
2004 Oct 05
0
new option implemented: --delete-mdays
Hi folks,
we would like your feedback on a new option we have implemented. We
would like to know whether it should be merged into the CVS
tree. Perhaps one of the rsync developers can have a look at the code,
improve it where necessary, and committ it to CVS.
The name of the option is "--delete-mdays=DAYS" and it works in
conjunction with the option "--delete." It modifies
2001 Aug 22
1
@RSYNC EXIT / @RSYNC EOF
tridge and Wayne in particular:
I checked in this patch, which is meant to consolidate the ones from
both of you for handling EOF in a modules list. The idea is that we
need to handle servers that just close the socket rather than sending
a nice ending token, but we want to keep EOF detection on in general.
(The IO code is such a mess!)
--
Martin
Index: clientserver.c
2002 Dec 05
1
Patch to ignore exluded files.
I came up with a patch to fix the problem of IO Errors caused by
excluded files as did Eugene V. Chupriyanov below.
Is there a chance that this change will show up in a future version of
rsync?
Is there a reason that we should not ignore IO errors when copy_links is
off? Just want to make sure that I'm not missing something here that
may corrupt my syncs....
Here's the version that
2013 Aug 12
2
[Bug 10081] New: Multiple rsync instances conflict
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10081
Summary: Multiple rsync instances conflict
Product: rsync
Version: 3.1.0
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P5
Component: core
AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org
ReportedBy: xaionaro at gmail.com
2004 Apr 27
1
[PATCH] Inplace option for rsync
Hi,
I have written a 'smallish' patch to implement the --inplace option
as discussed on this mailing list at various points in the past. It
makes a small modification to the sender algorithm so that it won't ask
the receiver to relocate blocks from earlier in the file when running
with the --inplace option.
I would appreciate any testing and feedback people can provide! I