similar to: max file size

Greetings, I'm seeing some weird issues surrounding the 2 terabyte limit on my 3ware (9590SE, PCI Express model) raid controller. Currently, the raid array is 6 x 500GB disks for a total of around 2.3 terabytes formatted. Looking at the documentation on the 3ware site, the raid card can handle a single partition over 2TB, but it still looks like fdisk fails to create a primary partition over

I'm considering using rsync in our data center but I'm worried about whether it will scale to the numbers and sizes we deal with. We would be moving up to a terabyte in a typical sync, consisting of about a million files. Our data mover machines are RedHat Linux Advanced Server 2.1 and all the sources and destinations are NFS mounts. The data is stored on big NFS file servers. The

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12806 Bug ID: 12806 Summary: Deleting in a row of hardlinked snapshots resets file permissions. Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core

Hi all, >From the manpage of rsync, I can see the following descriptions: --inplace The option implies --partial (since an interrupted transfer does not delete the file) So I do the following testings on the `--inplace' and `--partial' for resuming a file with the following steps: 1- rsync ftp.cn.debian.org::debian/dists/wheezy/main/binary-amd64/

Dear R community, I find R fantastic and use R whenever I can for my data analytic needs. Certain data sets, however, are so large that other tools seem to be needed to pre-process data such that it can be brought into R for further analysis. Questions I have for the many expert contributors on this list are: 1. How do others handle situations of large data sets (gigabytes, terabytes)

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5201 Summary: Rsync lets user corrupt dest by applying non-inplace batch in inplace mode Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo:

Hi. This is bug report and simultaneously urgent asking for help. I am trying to write my rsync wrapper script, which will create minutely snapshots of my data using --link-dest. I want this script to be robust, it should work even if I do suspend/hibernate/reboot without notifying the script about this actions, it should work if I make hard-reset of the computer and if I disconnect network. Also

Hi! As I commonly spell --inplace as --in-place, I'd like to suggest this simple patch: commit 5689f99b702788044a45e13582559832cf986328 Author: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw at lug-owl.de> Date: Wed Jun 26 22:49:31 2019 +0200 Allow "--in-place" as an alternative option name for "--inplace". diff --git a/options.c b/options.c index e5b0cb68..7ff0c51d 100644 ---

Am 11.07.24 um 12:47 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba: > Hi Stefan, I do not use use btrfs, so I cannot fully answer your > question, but a quick internet search using 'samba btrfs quota' turned > up this Samba bug: > > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10541 > > Perhaps that will help. thank you. Hmm. I learned about vfs_btrfs now and set up a test share

hi. i'm hitting a wall each time i try to format a 3 terabyte partition. i'm able to create the partition using parted but whenever i try to create a 3 terabyte xfs or jfs or ext3 filesystem, the mounted filesystem created is only 1 terabyte. i tried centos x86 and x86_64 4.0 but i always hit a 1 terabyte limit. please help.

Hi, i have to tranfer large files each 5-100 GB (mo-fri) over dsl line. unfortunately dsl lines are often not very stable and i got a broken pipe error. (dsl lines are getting a new ip if they are broken or at least after a reconnect every 24 hours) i had a script which detect the rsync error and restart the transmission. this means that if a file has transfered e.g. 80 % i start again from

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11651 Bug ID: 11651 Summary: Can we allow --inplace and --sparse to coexist when --whole-file is in play? Product: rsync Version: 3.1.2 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: core

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4834 Summary: --inplace with --backup --backup-dir does not work Product: rsync Version: 2.6.9 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy: joost@seat-ibiza.nl

I use rsync on an SSD which is slow at writing, but very fast at reading, so it is important to me to avoid writing data. I had hoped rsync would only write changes in files when using --inplace, but it seems not: # Make a 1 GB file $ perl -e 'print "x"x1000000000' > 1g # rsync it (as expected this costs 1 GB writes) $ ./rsync-3.1.0/rsync --progress --inplace -cva 1g 1g.copy

There is the problem which I discribed here https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=12820. rsync does not break hard-link into destination if hard-link has be broken in source with option inplace. The problem remains in the latest version of rsync? -- View this message in context: http://samba.2283325.n4.nabble.com/There-is-problem-of-rsync-with-options-hard-links-inplace-tp4714872.html Sent from

Hi, I need to use rsync with options inplace and no-whole-file, but have problems with transfers of large files being frequently interrupted. partial-dir could be the solution, but it does not work with inplace-updating of destination files. I am thinking of doing the sync in two steps: 1) sync with --partial-dir and --backup-dir to send updated files to a different directory at the

Hi I'm having issues sendig a lot of tar.gz backup files to a ZFS remote filesystem server. This files are compressed with the --rsyncable option. Sending without --inplace option rsync works well and send only the differences, but to create a temporary file and rewrite the file destination, zfs snapshots contain the full size of the backup, not only differences block. I've tried

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

>- --inplace and --append-verify are essentially irrelevant when >- --link-dest is in play. With --link-dest in play the target system >must write an entirely new file even for a change in permissions or >timestamps so any potential benefit by these options are out the >window from the start. The only thing they can do is add the >possibility of incomplete or corrupt copies on

Hi List, I had a need recently to efficiently synchronise between some large LUNs (boot drive disks) at two different datacentres. Solutions like drbd and $proprietary_array_vendors_software were overkill - we only needed (wanted!) to periodically synchronise these LUNs whenever major changes were generated on the source. On the other hand however, re-sending the entire disk contents each time