Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "rsyncing from a compressed tarball."
2016 Dec 07
3
rsyncing from a compressed tarball.
Mike,
As it stands right now, we use xz for our compression, so if rsync had
a similar option for xz that would probably be an improvement.
However, I think being able to decompress directly to the remote
system would save more; elsewise I don't see how I'm going to be able
to avoid untarring and uncompressing the whole xz file on the other
end.
thanks much,
ed
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at
2018 Mar 20
2
Very slow to start sync with millions of directories and files
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:49 PM Kevin Korb <kmk at sanitarium.net> wrote:
> Nothing there should be preventing incremental indexing. That means it
> should start copying as soon as it finds a file that needs to be copied.
>
Doesn't it tries to create all (empty) directories first?
> On 03/20/2018 02:33 PM, Bráulio Bhavamitra wrote:
> >
> >
> > Em seg, 19
2016 Jun 02
2
rsync keeps writing files over
OK. Thanks. Where can I find information regarding how to interpret
—itemize-changes?
The timestamps aren’t changing, so the target must not be storing them,
which I have no idea why. The directory I’m writing to is 777.
What is the flag to tell rsync to ignore the timestamps?
Thanks,
Blake
On 6/2/16, 6:18 PM, "rsync on behalf of Kevin Korb"
<rsync-bounces at lists.samba.org on
2018 Mar 20
2
Very slow to start sync with millions of directories and files
Em seg, 19 de mar de 2018 11:34, Kevin Korb via rsync <rsync at lists.samba.org>
escreveu:
> The performance of rsync with a huge number of files is greatly
> determined by every option you are using. So, what is your whole
> command line?
>
rsync -avP /data-old/ /data
>
> On 03/19/2018 09:05 AM, Bráulio Bhavamitra via rsync wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
2016 Jun 02
2
rsync keeps writing files over
Thanks Kevin! I¹m unclear how to read the ‹itemize-changes output. Can you
provide some insight?
This is a local transfer from an external drive to an internal drive all
attached to one computer.
rsync -aPh --itemize-changes -n
/Volumes/shuttle_05/2012_79_1_14_1__1199_Workprint /Volumes/3TB_LTO/LT003A/
sending incremental file list
>f..t.......
2017 Apr 07
3
modification times questions
Thank you!
I run --times when I use rsync (I actually use the -a flag) but the times do not transfer over and if I run rsync dryrun with -i I can see that it wants to transfer the files because of times. When I run rsync a second time with your suggestion the times do transfer over. I don't know why...
B
________________________________________
From: rsync [rsync-bounces at lists.samba.org]
2016 Jun 02
9
rsync keeps writing files over
Cool Thanks!
Specifically, the timestamps on both <src> and <dest> match for "ls -l"
but do not match for "ls -lu" or "ls -lc”
The storage is just an regular HDD in a mac pro tower. I can’t imagine why
it wouldn’t handle timestamps. Also of note - this problem doesn’t exist
for every file, just the vast majority. So, that just makes it more
confusing.
Yes,
2017 Apr 07
3
modification times questions
How do I transfer just the modification times with rsync? I now the file content is the same but the modification times are different. Is there a way to do this? Every way that I have tried causes the whole file to transfer as well.
Thanks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
2016 Jun 24
2
--partial not working?
Hi Kevin,
I haven't specified --whole-file. After entering an rsync command the terminal always reads "delta-transmission disabled for local transfer or --whole-file" but I assume that is just a standard phrase that always appears.
So, if I am running partial (-P) and not using --whole-file or disabling the delta-transmission, why would an incomplete file be deleted and the
2015 Jan 11
2
Link-dest thinks file is newly created, but it isn't
On Sat Jan 10 2015 at 5:21:33 AM Kevin Korb <kmk at sanitarium.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> What does --itemize-changes say about that file? Try using the stat
> command on the various copies of it to see what is different about them.
>
In my original message, I stated I used --itemize-changes, and I reported
the following:
>
2015 Sep 10
2
Doubt on usage of rsync for chown of existing folders
Hi Kevin,
Thank you very much. I changed my user in the remote machine (su).
Then, by trying again with rsync but with no modification in the source folder, I see that file ownership continues the same.
Would be possible for rsync to change the ownership in this case (I am not root) ?
Thanks,
Regards,CJ
Em Quinta-feira, 10 de Setembro de 2015 20:01, Kevin Korb <kmk at
2014 Dec 03
4
encrypted rsyncd - why was it never implemented?
rsync in daemon mode is very powerful, yet it comes with one big
disadvantage: data is sent in plain.
The workarounds are not really satisfying:
- use VPN - one needs to set up an extra service, not always possible
- use stunnel - as above
- use SSH - is not as powerful as in daemon mode (i.e. read only access,
chroot, easy way of adding/modifying users and modules etc.)
Why was encrypted
2016 Dec 17
2
script showing extended stats ( deleted/added ...)
is there a script which analyses rsync output with --itemize-changes ?
i.e. i would like to have extended information on number of deleted files, created directories, changed files....
i know rsync 3.1.x is better with this, but it`s still not in centos 5/6/7 and i don`t want to update tons of systems to get extended statistics, so i wonder if anbody did an analyze script to get that information
2016 Feb 08
2
--link-dest not working on remote server (running daemon)
Thanks for the reply. The link-dest is different. It is Feb 1 while the
source is Feb 2.
I tried setting path = /media/external/ for the daemon and using
rsync -a -v -i --delete --link-dest=backup-2016-02-01-0100
--password-file=/media/external/scripts/offsite_rsync.pass
/media/external/backup/backup-2016-02-02-0100 backup at 192.168.2.102:
:offsite/backup
So all three (link-dest, source,
2017 Mar 14
4
Rsyncing without RSH or SSH ?
People,
This doesn't seem possible - would it be possible to hack a version of
rsync to do it?
As an exercise, I want to create a VM image (or at least backup of all
the files with rsync) from a SCSI drive in an old Red Hat (NOT
Enterprise) v5.2 Linux 486 machine (circa 1999 that does have rsync on
it but it has protocol problems talking my server). The 486 has:
- an ISA Adaptec 1542
2013 Aug 02
2
hardlinking and -R (multiple source directories)
Hi,
hardlinking (-H) works perfectly while using a syntax like -avhxSDH <SRC>
<DEST>
Now I have to mirror multiple SRC directories which contain hardlinks. e.
g: src1/a is a hardlink to src2/b
-RavhxSDH SRC1 SRC2 DEST
does not preserve hardlink a and b in DEST. Is there any chance to do that?
Thanks
lopiuh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
2015 Oct 28
2
Disabling "quick check"
What about -c? It seems I'm getting a lot of spurious file transfer
candidates when using:
-avvznIi --no-o --no-g --no-p
It's showing transfers (receive) for many files I know haven't been
tampered with.
Thanks,
-Clint
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Kevin Korb <kmk at sanitarium.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> That is correct.
2018 Mar 25
4
Rsync between 2 datacenters not working
You could try using an automounter, like autofs, in combination with
sshfs. It'll be slower, possibly a lot slower, but it should be more
reliable over an unreliable connection.
I've been using:
remote -fstype=fuse,allow_other,nodev,noatime,reconnect,ServerAliveInterval=15,ServerAliveCountMax=40,uid=0,gid=0,ro,nodev,noatime
:sshfs\#root at remote.host.com\:/
BTW, I'm not sure
2015 Oct 28
2
Disabling "quick check"
Ok, thank you for this extra info. I have experienced exactly what you
described. The rsync dry run is _still_ running after being started at
1:30am PST :)
But it is finding the right files to update. Most of the entries are:
>fc........
Which is what I want.
So, just because I see:
>f
at the beginning...
That doesn't necessarily mean that the file is going to get updated at the
2020 Aug 11
2
Meaning of "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