similar to: --relative clobbers --delete

During my initial download for my home directory backup, it took rsync over 6 hours to do the initial backup, but I can FTP the stuff in about 30 Mins. Is Rsync usualy this slow? I have compression turned on, and its across a 100 MB/S network, Anyone had this problem before? Steve Sills

What I want to do is use rsync to back up a folder to an external drive. I would like to keep 30 days worth. For example: I have backups of June 1 - June 30. Once July 1 comes along, I want to keep June 2 - July 1 and delete June 1, and so forth. Any ideas how I can accomplish this? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Rysnc-Schedule-tf4104577.html#a11672997 Sent from the

Hi all, I'm new to the rsync list. I've been searching for two days and have tried five different installs and so far none work the way I need them to. I have an "backup" server running rsync --version: rsync version 2.6.6 protocol version 29 Copyright (C) 1996-2005 by Andrew Tridgell and others <http://rsync.samba.org/> Capabilities: 64-bit files, socketpairs, hard

Steve Sills Platnum Computers, President http://www.platnum.com steve@platnum.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Sills" <steve@platnum.com> To: "jw schultz" <jw@pegasys.ws> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:52 PM Subject: Re: Rsync's Speed > The source server is a Dual 800 Mhz /w a 7200 RPM 40 GB HDD, the dest server > is a P III 450 with a

rsync commandline: /usr/bin/rsync -e /usr/bin/ssh --archive --compress --sparse --verbose --stats --delete --numeric-ids --partial --relative --one-file-system target.host:/ /destination/path/ target rsync version: 2.6.3 destination rsync version: 2.6.2 The server we're trying to synchronize contains directories within "/" that are mounted to other locations within

Just built 2.6.1 and started testing it. Nice job guys. I especially love the --progress and hardlink tweaks. Quite often, while I have systems backing up out of cron, I'd love to be able to see the --progress. Unfortunately, it's just not practical to crank up the verbosity like that on a regular basis (some of these systems have a few million files). A neat feature I'd like to see

Just got this from our nightly backup rsync: overflow: flags=0x6e l1=99 l2=1952984691 lastname=var/www/manual/mod/mod_php4/de/function.get-exte ERROR: buffer overflow in receive_file_entry rsync error: error allocating core memory buffers (code 22) at util.c(238) Command exited with non-zero status 22 real 5.15 user 1.00 sys 0.88 Rsync version information: [root@gluon root]# rsync

I've been getting this error message for a few days from a customer's server and we can't seem to decipher it. I googled for it and only found references to it with respect to much older versions of rsync. We're running the Debian packaged version of rsync version 2.6.2-3. The customer side is running 2.6.3 compiled from source. #### inflate (token) returned -5 rsync error:

Have the hard-links optimizations that were described here been implemented? http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2004-January/008137.html In any case, what's the general consensus behind using the --hard-links option on large (100GB and above) images? Does it still use a ton of memory? Or has that situation been alleviated? ..Chuck.. -- http://www.quantumlinux.com Quantum Linux

Is it practical to get a R/W file handle opened against an existing file on an unmounted ext2 filesystem? -- Chuck Wolber Electronic Flight Bag Crew Information Systems/ Linux Wonk 253.576.1154 "You can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards." --Steve Jobs

OK, I set up a new PC with a fresh XP load to be my rsync server. Rsync by itself seems to work fine (thank God. I'm going nuts.) I am still having problems when I throw ssh into the mix. At least now, things don't crash, but they do hang. The file list gets build, the transfer starts and it gets through maybe a few hundred files, but then everything stops. All the processes are still

Hello all, I saw on the Release notes that 2.6.0 is using protocol version 27 which is different than 2.5.7 and 2.5.6. I did a quick peak through the rest of the release notes and quickly browsed the archives on the list and I didn't see any notes on how well 2.6.0 works with older versions of rsync. At our site, we do have 2.5.7 and 2.5.6 installed. Are there any documented problems when

Hi - there's a flag for rsync to compress the files in transit - is it possible to compress one side (target) with gzip and have rsync still work correctly? Any help would be appreciated. -- Ken

Hi all, I want to setup a RAID storage system, where i have two systems connected to it. the filesystems are mapped out to both connectors. I want the master host mount them read write, and the slave read only. in my fstab on the slave I have a line like the following: /dev/sdb1 /mount ext3 acl,noauto,user_xattr,nosuid,ro 0 0 so in man 5 fstab, it is written, that when the 6. field

I have an ext3 filesystem mounted r/w on 1 host and r/o on multiple hosts. Dangerous but cost effective. I recently implemented some protection through a fc switch that restricts some hosts to r/o access to the data luns. So if someone types mount -o rw or something, all is not lost. The issue occurs when it's mounted r/w on 1 host and another host attempts to mount it r/o. The mount

I am attempting to use rsync to backup a Win98 laptop to a FreeBSD 4.8 backup server. I have experienced the same problem at roughly the same point in the process on two occations. The laptop contains ~2.7Gb of data. On the first attempt we received this error at 2.3Gb and on the second at 2.4Gb. rsync error: partial transfer (code 23) at main.c(575) Would love to have a full backup of the

One thing that's bugged me is that some of the man page lines in the options summary are longer than 79 chars and wrap onto the next line. These are just one line summaries (detailed description appear later) so they can, and should, be terse. Here's an edited diff showing my proposed changes (and a 79 char ruler):

There is no need any longer to store the clobbers in struct paravirt_patch_site. Remove clobbers from the struct and from the related macros. While at it fix some lines longer than 80 characters. Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> --- arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 33 +++++++++++++++------------------ arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h | 1 - 2 files changed,

Hello Ive been learning / implementing AWS Thanks to the wonderful pdf by orielly I was able to spot a problem with the User Engine I would like to see if anyone else has had problems with this?? Basically if you make a web service at /products You should be able to reach /product/wsdl and get a well formatted xml doc If you have a login engine on it seems

As with 0.62.3, when I install my dse package with documentation in 0.62.4 the html help in R/doc/html/function.html gets clobbered so that the regular R function help is not available. I was postponing a revised version of my dse library install in the hope that this might be fixed. Does anyone know if this is a simple problem that I can hope will be fixed soon, or should I consider a