similar to: Failed Verification - Update Retained (will try again)

Hi, I see some warnings like the following. Could anybody explains what they mean? Thanks. 19/31274477.pdf 257,169,119 0% 1.26MB/s 0:03:15 (xfr#121, to-chk=848309/1043298)WARNING: 18/32281577.pdf failed verification -- update retained (will try again). WARNING: 19/28879866.pdf failed verification -- update retained (will try again). -- Regards, Peng

Mostly it means that the file rsync ended up with on the target end didn't match the file on the source it started with. This is mostly caused by the file being modified on the source while rsync is copying it but it can also be a memory corruption problem. On 8/11/20 1:13 PM, Peng Yu via rsync wrote: > Hi, > > I see some warnings like the following. Could anybody explains what

Hi there! On a daily backup script, I am getting a lot of these messages: WARNING: <filename> -- update retained (will try again). I've tried googling, but i can't figure out what these messages exactly mean and how i can solve them. Any hint? Thank you Gabriele -- GPG Key Fingerprint: DAD1 E3E3 C3E9 36FB C570 F405 9B5F 7108 A1D0 2FFF

Usually it means that the file changed while rsync was running. But it can also mean that a hardware problem (usually RAM) is causing the hashing to return bogus results. On 6/3/19 6:09 AM, sambalist--- via rsync wrote: > Hi there! > > On a daily backup script, I am getting a lot of these messages: > > WARNING: <filename> -- update retained (will try again). > >

A nightly scripted rsync backup job is giving me this error WARNING: vm/escDebLenny14G-flat.vmdk failed verification -- update discarded (will try again). I've searched the web and I think probably the problem is the source file changed during the copy. However, I haven't seen any explanations for the "will try again" part. Does it try again immediately? If so, does a

I've been using rsync for a long time, and it's very cool. For the first time, last night, I got a message I don't understand. I am using rsync 2.6.4 on Fedora (FC4) Linux to a Fedora (FC3) Linux machine. The command I am using is: rsync -av --delete-excluded --exclude="*~" --exclude="#*#" <source dir> remove_machine:<dest dir> I got the following

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:

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matt Younce" <Matt_Younce at cinfin.com> > To: r-devel at r-project.org > Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 9:32:04 AM > Subject: [Rd] Does (will) CRAN provide consistent integrity verification > > Intended Audience: CRAN administrators, maintainers and R Package > Developers. > Does anyone know of consistent methods (or

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3925 Summary: rsync is unable to sync large (approx 4G) sparse files Product: rsync Version: 2.6.8 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy:

Hi, I recently came across a situation where "rsync --inplace" performs very poorly. If both the source and destination files contain long sequences of identical blocks, but not necessarily in the same location, the sender can spend an inordinate amount of CPU time finding matching blocks. In my case, I came across this problem while backing up multi-hundred-gigabyte MySQL database

Intended Audience: CRAN administrators, maintainers and R Package Developers. Does anyone know of consistent methods (or plans for near future) to verify integrity of downloaded R package binaries from CRAN? The purpose is to foster a high degree of trust in the validity of downloaded binaries from CRAN. For example Apache projects mostly provide something like MD5, SHA1, SHA256, or signing with

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2187 ------- Additional Comments From qiucheng@csc.com.cn 2004-12-27 01:15 ------- Created an attachment (id=869) --> (https://bugzilla.samba.org/attachment.cgi?id=869&action=view) error log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact

Hi We synch between servers, some are NAS with RAIDs, some are simple Linux servers. Sometimes I get messages like: WARNING: path/to/file failed verification -- update retained (will try again). What are the possible reasons for this message? I looked on the Internet and found old posts about a problem with big files. I do get this message with big files (GB) but also with small files

Wayne, I noticed that rsync will let me apply a non-inplace batch file in inplace mode. This corrupts the destination file if the batch file copies any data forward (from earlier offsets to later ones). Of course, the post-transfer checksum detects the corruption and gives the "ERROR: <file> failed verification" message, but rsync doesn't give the user a clue why the

I believe that the changes to support --preallocate and --sparse together have broken --preallocate by itself (commit f3873b3d88b61167b106e7b9227a20147f8f6197) The previous behavior of --preallocate was to do just that: reserve blocks in the filesystem WITHOUT setting the size of the file to the final length. The reported filesize would change as the preallocated blocks were actually written.

On the source system: $ rsync --version rsync version 2.6.8 protocol version 29 Copyright (C) 1996-2006 by Andrew Tridgell, Wayne Davison, and others. <http://rsync.samba.org/> Capabilities: 64-bit files, socketpairs, hard links, ACLs, symlinks, batchfiles, inplace, IPv6, file flags, 32-bit system inums, 64-bit internal inums ... $ ll -d fcst-200[89] fcst-201[01] dr-xr-xr-x

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13660 Bug ID: 13660 Summary: State clearly in manpage that --append-verify is an edge-case Product: rsync Version: 3.1.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core Assignee:

Hi Folks, This tip is probably lurking somewhere already, but I've just discovered it the hard way, so it is probably worth passing on for the benefit of those who might otherwise hack their way along the same path. Say (for example) you want to do a logistic regression of a binary response Y on variables X1, X2, X3, X4: GLM <- glm(Y ~ X1 + X2 + X3 + X4) Say there are 1000 cases in the

I am using rsync 2.6.9 in daemon mode under Cygwin, and having trouble reconciling its --append behavior with that described in the man page: The man page says that when you use --append, it will update a file by appending, which presumes the existing data on the receiving side matches. But when I run rsync with append mode when the existing file on the receiving side is shorter than on the

Export initrd in debugfs when retained. As a side effect, initrd_start and initrd_end are not cleared when the initrd is retained. After this patch, one can then copy the initrd space from debugfs and pass it to kexec as the initrd, or do something else with it (maybe it was an initrd not an initramfs). Signed-off-by: Milton Miller <miltonm at bga.com> --- This is a lot more reliable