similar to: Issue with Sum update

This patch adds the --link-by-hash=DIR option, which hard links received files in a link farm arranged by MD4 file hash. The result is that the system will only store one copy of the unique contents of each file, regardless of the file's name. Anyone have an example of an MD4 collision so I can test that case? :) Patch Summary: -1 +1 Makefile.in -0 +304 hashlink.c (new)

This patch adds the --link-by-hash=DIR option, which hard links received files in a link farm arranged by MD4 file hash. The result is that the system will only store one copy of the unique contents of each file, regardless of the file's name. (rev 4) * Updated for committed robust_rename() patch, other changes in CVS. (rev 3) * Don't link empty files. * Roll over to new file when

This patch adds the --link-by-hash=DIR option, which hard links received files in a link farm arranged by MD4 file hash. The result is that the system will only store one copy of the unique contents of each file, regardless of the file's name. (rev 3) * Don't link empty files. * Roll over to new file when filesystem maximum link count is reached. * If link fails for another reason, leave

This patch adds the --link-by-hash=DIR option, which hard links received files in a link farm arranged by MD4 file hash. The result is that the system will only store one copy of the unique contents of each file, regardless of the file's name. (rev 5) * Fixed silly logic error. (rev 4) * Updated for committed robust_rename() patch, other changes in CVS. (rev 3) * Don't link empty

This patch adds the --link-by-hash=DIR option, which hard links received files in a link farm arranged by MD4 file hash. The result is that the system will only store one copy of the unique contents of each file, regardless of the file's name. (rev 2) * This revision is actually against CVS HEAD (I didn't realize I was working from a stale rsync'd CVS). * Apply permissions after

Hello all, Thanks for all the ideas. I liked the remote to remote idea and have told my guide about it. Anyways, can anybody tell me which files to look into, if I want to look at the code for file reconstruction. I have studied Dr. Tridgell's thesis on the Rsync Algorithm and have understood the working of the algorithm. Now, I am trying to read the code to understand it better. Any help

Greetings, I'd like to propose a new option to rsync, which causes it to read device files as if they were regular files. This includes pipes, character devices and block devices (I'm not sure about sockets). The main motivation is cases where you need to synchronize a large amount of data that is not available as regular files, as in the following scenarios: * Keep a copy of a block

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

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

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8659 Summary: link-by-hash.diff: Fix error when running without --link-by-hash Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org

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

Dear List, I'm trying to get diff/removed data and it's offset out. So I write a functions in receive_data. When I run backup, I found there is a weird behavior which I don't understand. i = recv_token(f_in, &data) will receive (i = -1, offset2 = 0) some where in the middle of the transfer procedure. That's to say, it's going to transfer the first data block from sender,

Hello Everyone, I have been reading the rsync code for the past few days and Iam finding it hard to understand how the file list works. The info that I am looking for is - "Are the files processed in the same order in both the receiver and generator processes?". Thanx in advance for all the replies. zahed. -- View this message in context:

Platform: Compaq OpenVMS Alpha 7.3 Compiler: Compaq C T6.5 The following patch resolves compile problems with the checksum.c module. The type (char) was being used where the usage indicated either (void) or (unsigned char) should be used. The const qualifier was added to impove compiler efficiency. There may be more cases in this module where type (char) is being used instead of what appears

When a whole-file checksum is performed, hashing was done in 64 byte blocks, causing overhead and limiting performance. Testing showed the performance improvement to go up quickly going from 64 to 512 bytes, with diminishing returns above, 4096 was where it seemed to plateau for me. Re-used CHUNK_SIZE (32 kB) as it already exists and should be fine to use here anyway. Noticed this because

Currently rsync has a bit of a problem with very large files. Dynamic block sizes were introduced to try handle that automatically if the user didn't specify a block size. Unfortunately that isn't enough and the block size would need to grow faster than the file. Besides, overly large block sizes mean large amounts of data need to be copied even for small changes. The maths indicate

The attached patch provides an additional check for the checksumming mode to ensure that a file that is actually written out to disk can be read back and has the same MD4 sum as the file on at the originating location. Regards, Nick. -------------- next part -------------- *** rsync-2.6.6pre1/receiver.c 2005-04-14 02:42:13.000000000 +0100 --- rsync-new/receiver.c 2005-07-26

On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 12:36, Martin Pool wrote: > On 5 Apr 2004, Donovan Baarda <abo@minkirri.apana.org.au> wrote: > > > librsync needs a whole file checksum. Without it, it silently fails for > > case 1), 3), and 4). > > Yes, a whole-file checksum should be used with it. Presumably > something stronger than md4 like SHA-1. md4 is probably good enough for most

>From the manpage: --csum-length=LENGTH By default the primary checksum used in rsync is a very strong 16 byte MD4 checksum. In most cases you will find that a trun- cated version of this checksum is quite efficient, and this will decrease the size of the checksum data sent over the link, mak- ing things faster. You can choose the

From: Andrea Tacconi <tacconet at libero.it> Subject: [PATCH] drm/nouveau: fix vbios load and check functions on PowerPC On PowerPC the Bios signature reports a wrong lenght of video rom. Fix this by reading the correct size from Open Firmware. Set Pramin as primary vbios searching method, because it's the only working method on PowerPC. The nv_cksum function always fails. Fix this