similar to: Any idea on this rsync error?

Hi, Could anyone please tell me how to get the meaning of rsync error codes. In "rsync return code: 12" error, what 12 indicates? Thanks, Jignesh -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed

Could any one please help me to get rid of below errors? ERROR: DoRsync(): rsync had errors or failed rsync return code: 23 could not make way for new symlink: bin could not make way for new symlink: etc could not make way for new symlink: include rsync error: some files/attrs were not transferred (see previous errors) (code 23) at main.c(1505)

Hi, I am getting "rsync warning: some files vanished before they could be transferred (code 24) at main.c(1039) [sender=3.0.6]" now frequently but while using rsync version 2.6, I used to get it rarely. Any idea would be helpful on why rsync 3.0.6 is throwing this warning frequently. Jignesh. -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed

Hello Friends, Could any one please tell me what is transfer mode and what are the transfer modes available in rsync? Thanks, Jignesh -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed

Hi, Could any one please tell me if there is any way to remove 11 letters long cryptic output from -ii option. I am using rsync 3.0.5 rsync -av -stats -ii --log-file-format='CONTENTS: %i %f %l %o %b' --log-file='/tmp/rsync-test' Mydocs/ Mydocs1/" The output of this command: 2009/03/31 15:15:17 [4537] building file list 2009/03/31 15:15:29 [4537] created directory Mydocs1

Hello Friends, Could any atleast one tell me how rsync walk the complete File System and when it start actual synching? Thanks, Jignesh On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Jignesh Shah <jignesh.shah1980@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Friends, > > I think lot of changes have been made from rsync 2.6.0 to V3. The one major > change is rsync V3 will not walk complete file system first and

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Kevin Korb <kmk at sanitarium.net> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Normally, I would say that --checksum is actually slower than just > letting rsync re-copy everything Depends on the network capacity and costs associated with that bandwidth :( >and therefore is almost always the > wrong thing to do. Nope,

> On 25 May 2020, at 23:55, Wayne Davison via rsync <rsync at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > I've decided to give hosting it on github a try, especially since there's been a lot of nice contributions lately. Hopefully this will make it easier for both the people sending patches as well as for me to snag the changes. I'll continue to push changes to the samba git as well.

Hi, I am not sure how rsync calculates below statistics and how transfer rate 170583.48 bytes/sec ? Where is the total transfer time information? How speedup is 1? How Total bytes written is 6567384? Could someone please give me brief information on this. Number of files: 4 Number of files transferred: 3 Total file size: 6566219 bytes Total transferred file size: 6566219 bytes Literal data:

problem is he's trying to rsync into the target dir and have the side effect of delete. so an empty dir would necessarily need to be in the target of course and thus created there, triggering the quota block. he tried to avoid this by using device files then 'blocking all device files' but i think rsync figures out first there's nothing to do, so it just stops and doesnt do the

Hi Ram, In OS X, some font types (not all) put the font payload in the resource fork. Netatalk provides AFP filesharing, imitating the resource forks by creating secondary files in ?.Appledouble? folders within each folder. Netatalk tracks the resource forks, and other metadata, by keeping a ?Desktop database? at the root of the shared volume ? look for .AppleDesktop, and .AppleDB. You can

Hi raf, Curious issue you have. A few things: What distro(s) are you using? Same rsync version on both ends? Hash of files look correct before and after the rsync? Have you tried using inotify to monitor for changes at the fs level? You should see a "read" on the sender and a "read" + "write" on the receiver. On Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 11:25 PM raf via rsync

Hi, I am using below command. rsync --verbose --log-file-format='%i %f %l %o %b' --log-file='/tmp/myfile' src/ dest/ Though it is good that all the sync information contents will be redirected to /tmp/myfile, it would be useful if rsync could print at least below final statistics on stdout. 2009/05/05 00:17:45 [26050] Number of files: 18 2009/05/05 00:17:45 [26050] Number of

There are times when a large file is copied up to 99% and then deleted after having received the error. Other times when the error occurs earlier and only a part of it is copied. Does it make sense to calculate the checksum if in both cases in output I don't have the same information that there is in input ? Because in the first case it is totally deleted and in the second case I have only a

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 if you see >f it is doing something to the file. At least a delta-xfer. If it was just a metadata change it would show cf. If you see an >fc without a t then that is an example where rsync found a file that didn't match even though the timestamps did. That isn't supposed to happen very often. On 10/28/2015 01:19 PM, Clint Olsen

Hi, I read below lines in rsync v3.0.5 for --relative option. if you used this command: rsync -av /foo/bar/baz.c remote:/tmp/ ... this would create a file named baz.c in /tmp/ on the remote machine. If instead you used rsync -avR /foo/bar/baz.c remote:/tmp/ then a file named /tmp/foo/bar/baz.c would be created on the remote machine, preserving its full path It is also possible to limit the

Not to mention the fact that ZFS requires considerable hardware resources (CPU & memory) to perform well. It also requires you to learn a whole new terminology to wrap your head around it. It's certainly not a trivial swap to say the least... Thanks, -Clint On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Ken Chase <rsync-list-m829 at sizone.org> wrote: > This has been a consideration. But it

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 No, even if bandwidth is your concern I would say that --checksum is wrong. Maybe if bandwidth is so scarse that a few KB vs a few MB equates to dollars then sure, use --checksum. Otherwise, letting rsync re-delta-xfer everything is certainly faster and not much more bandwidth intensive than --checksum. Plus that is only if you screwed up and ran

I appreciate the parable of helping non-technical users (or, more precisely, users not keen on IT). As I understand, placement of software like Word or Photoshop servers this purpose. But both of them have decent open-source counterparts, and they are better fit for an rsync manual. Or, if from any reason proprietary software is preferred in this context (perhaps because it generates even more

Anyone have any other ideas I could try to debug this issue? :) -- Best regards / Met vriendelijke groet, Aron Rotteveel 2015-03-27 16:02 GMT+01:00 Aron Rotteveel <rotteveel.aron at gmail.com>: > Hi Kevin, > > Just did: same result. > > -- > Best regards / Met vriendelijke groet, > > Aron Rotteveel > > 2015-03-27 14:32 GMT+01:00 Kevin Korb <kmk at