similar to: Option to not update Atime on filesystems not mounted noatime

Hi Let's say i wanted to exclude 100.000 files by naming them one by one in a file to be used by --exclude-from. Can rsync cope with that without bigger problems? I'm currently thinking about how i could make backing up by computer more efficient and if i exclude every single file that i can reproduce an other way, the amount of files i need to back up would be reduced by a large

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7249 Summary: Add an option to use O_NOATIME Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org ReportedBy: nicolas.george at normalesup.org

Hello I am making backup of a Plesk Debian server to /backup using Rsync. My questioin is how can I preserve the ctime, mtime, and atime of original files? Thanks

Hello, since we are using rsync for backing up millions of files in a virtual environment, and most of the virtual machines run on SSD cached storage, i`d be curious how that negatively impacts lifetime of the SSD`s when we do rsync run every night for backup my question: does rsync normal file comparison run to determine if anything has changed change atime of any files ? for me it seems,

Hey everyone, I am a final semester MCA student. I've chosen rsync as the subject of my project for my graduation. Hence I would appreciate it if someone could guide me with some ideas on how I can contribute to rsync. I will work hard to implement whatever suggestions that you can all give me. I would definitely like to know what are some of the issues concerning rsync. May be I can then

Hi I have a "Chain" of rsyncs(*) A -> B -> C -> D My problem is that "A" is switched off after the rsync is done. So i have to copy the "batch" immediately (and manually/via other means) to "B", before switching off, so the batch can later be retrieved from "B" and copied to "C" for --read-batch. And copied further on for

This is just an inquiry about how rsync calculates its transfer speeds. I'm using rsync over ssh to pull data from our central office to another office. Our central office is connected to the internet via T1 and the other office is connected to the internet via DSL. rsync is being run at the remote office to pull data down from the central office so I expect to see transfer speeds at a

Is it possible to tell rsync *not* to use file names, date stamps, etc and only use the checksum for deciding if a file is the same? the remote machine "normalizes" a set of file names to remove all punctuation marks and forces all file names to lower case. The files themselves are unchanged. --checksum looks promising but it does not say anything about file names: -c, --checksum

We are using rsync to pull backups created on our server. The command below is run as a cronjob and it works great. rsync -avu --rsh "ssh -l root" root@servername:/var/lib/mysql/backups/ /backups/mysql/ We have a new server that will replace the old server that rsync pulls backups from. On the system that is running rsync, I switched the servername in the command above to the new

Will Dovecot be negatively impacted if I change my XFS mount options to noatime,nodiratime? Thanks. -- Stan

Hi! I've just tried to do a backup of a machine with rsync. While doing this (I was reading emails:-) I noted that mbox for mbox, I had no longe new mails, but I've never read off these mailboxes lately... This seemed to be a st_atime problem, and indeed, I could verify that. This is what I used for backup: rsync --archive \ --recursive \

Dear Martin Pool. We regularly use rsync for making backups of our file systems but we have noticed that the atimes are not transferred with the files and are also always updated on the sender's side. Therefore, we have created a modified version of rsync based on rsync-2.6.6 protocol version 29 which transfers the access times with the transferred files and also allows to preserve the access

Hi If i'm reading git right(git log v3.0.9..) the development branch that will eventually result in 3.1.0 is nearly 5 years "in the making". Personally i'm anticipating the fallocate support, as XFS is great at preallocateing (fallocating even a several gigabyte big file only takes milliseconds) which reduces fragmentation especially when the copy operation takes time.

Often we need to preserve the information atime conveys, but I have found no way to get rsync to preserve this, nor any hint it is being worked on. It would be great if 'rsync -t' also set atime not just mtime -- or maybe a new option is desired for atime. I don't know if the -X mentioned in "NEWS file from CVS" covers this: > Added the --xattrs (-X) option to preserver

Hi all, I was trying to mount root-partition which is ext3 partition with noatime and ro option. I included "ro" in the kernel command line But for mounting it with "noatime" option when I searched for some solution I came across a patch http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/5/38 But after applying this patch and including option "noatime" in

On Wed 26 Oct 2016, devzero at web.de wrote: > > since we are using rsync for backing up millions of files in a virtual environment, and most of the virtual machines run on SSD cached storage, i`d be curious how that negatively impacts lifetime of the SSD`s when we do rsync run every night for backup > > my question: > does rsync normal file comparison run to determine if anything

Greetings, I am aware that mounting filesystems with noatime option greatly increases speed. I have tried to follow discussion on the pros and cons of using noatime. I have however not been able to mount with the option relatime in centos 5.2. But in a production db server, which is backed up by HP DP, is it advisable to mount with noatime? Anybody care to share their experience on it?

I find rsync an excellent tool when I need to move multi-gigabyte filesystems, because I can do most of the copying during the week - then a quick cleanup sweep in our 4 hour outage window. I do need to somehow get the atime's to copy over, because as it stands now I loose the age information (which we will soon be using for auto-archiving) on things I copy with rsync. Would it be that hard

I posted a patch a few days ago that adds copying of atime. At that time, it was just enabled with -t/--times. After some time, we have figured out that that choice might not have been the best. Here's a new version of the patch (relative to CVS) that adds -A/--copy-atime instead. It also includes a test case. Any feedback on this patch and/or the previous one that I posted?

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, joe wrote: >> Environment: > RELENG_4 20051028 >> Description: > [cp fails to update atime] > > this occurs regardless of whether or not the user has > rwx permissions on the source file. does not apply of > course if the source filesystem is mounted read-only. > they are read-write here. > > since the source file is indeed being read,