similar to: Rsync to just upload new/updated files without comparing source/destination

Thanks for info. I was under the assumption that rsync will execute followings steps: 1. Compare first to identify different files (new/updated) --> This is where i am worried due to data size 2. Upload new/updated files 3 Remove source file As per your comment, rsync will compare after uploading to check if files are identical ? Additionally i don't expect to delete directories as i want

If you remove the source files as rsync copies them (--remove-source-files) then rsync will have nothing to compare. It will just go through the tree looking for files that aren't on the target which would probably be any file it finds. Just don't ever use --delete in that scenario. Adding --omit-dir-times will save you a lot of output if you have any of --itemize-changes --verbose

Thanks for your inputs. Surprisingly i tried executing the following command but end up deleting ssh.exe in Cygwin folder when source folder path is incorrect or not reachable. rsync --remove-source-files -v -av -r /cygdrive/c/AmitTest/ ssh username at destinationserver:/cygdrive/e/AMIT/AmitTest/ I am wondering if remove source is doing some tricks there but unable to find root cause why ssh.exe

If the source only has 50 files then rsync only needs to check for those 50 files on the target. If one exists rsync will compare the timestamp to see if it needs copying. Yes, rsync verifies a hash of the file after transfer. On 11/19/2017 02:41 PM, Amit via rsync wrote: > Thanks for info. I was under the assumption that rsync will execute > followings steps: > 1. Compare first to

Given the structure… /foo/bar/want-this.txt /foo/bar/want-this-2.txt /bar/foo/ /do-not-want-to-transfer/test.txt With the desire to ‘include items with foo in their path’... I understand that the closest I can get to a satisfactory filter ruleset is something like: + **foo** + */ - * … and setting --prune-empty-dirs. However, /bar/foo/ is empty, and of course should be copied.. but is pruned.

When using fake-super mode in an rsync receiver, anything that's neither a file nor a directory (e.g. devices, symlinks, etc) is converted into a file, and properties such as original ownership, filetype, and permissions are stored in a specific extended attribute. In the case of a symlink, the contents of the link are stored in a plain file. The original mode of the symlink is normally

Hi, I'm using "only-write-batch" and "read-batch" to syncronize a debian root filesystem with some personalized software on it, from a central server to remote devices (all with RO filesystem, and perfectly identical among them). In this way I'm able to push from my master device to an "updater" server and, from that, manage automatic updates on my remote

On 03/02/18 13:20, Dave Gordon via rsync wrote: > When using fake-super mode in an rsync receiver, anything that's neither a > file nor a directory (e.g. devices, symlinks, etc) is converted into a file, > and properties such as original ownership, filetype, and permissions are > stored in a specific extended attribute. > > In the case of a symlink, the contents of the link

Hello to all, I am having trouble with intregrating a complicated uni-dimensional function of the following form Phi(x-a_1)*Phi(x-a_2)*...*Phi(x-a_{n-1})*phi(x-a_n). Here n is about 5000, Phi is the cumulative distribution function of standard normal, phi is the density function of standard normal, and x ranges over (-infty,infty). My idea is to to use quadrature to handle this integral. But

Hello, This is my first posting to the rsync list. I mirror a database containing directories which contain a very large number of files (say 30,000), and sending the file list can often take longer than transferring the new files. (Rsync ends up sending nearly the same file list on every transfer, with only the addition of a few new files.) Has the rsync team considered an rsync option

Hello, I want to synchronize two local directories, but if in the destination directory there are some files that has most recent modified time than the source directory I want that the source old files than the destination will be updated. Is it possible? Thanks for helping me. Best regards, --- Ivan -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed

Dear all users, I read all R programs and texts in "Relative Distribution Methods" website, but I encounter two problems when I used it. then I used "Google" to try to find any solutions about the two problems,but I got no useful hints. 1、 In package "reldist" y mean sample from comparison distribution yo mean sample from reference distribution but I

I would like to write AGI script in Ruby Would anybody please show me right direction.. Thanks

Hello! I just uploaded a photo on zroslina's DailyFlog page that I want you to see. Please come and see: http://www.mydailyflog.com/go/invite_register/zroslina/56282492&stc=18 Thanks! Roslina Zakaria ======================================== Got a digital camera? MyDailyFlog is a personal photo-blogging space where you can easily post your latest and greatest photos, and share them

I checked for updates and it had 5 to do so I started that, left and came back and the update panel was gone. ?Is there a way to check what was updated? (centos 6.5) Thanks, -wes

On 07/12/2018 09:36 AM, mark wrote: > I just updated the "critical" firefox update, and it is *seriously* buggy. > > 1. I killed my old session, and started a new. Many (all?) tabs show > *nothing* until I put my cursor in the URL bar and hit <enter> > 2. I cannot open a link in an email in thunderbird. I click the link, and > after a bit (30 sec? more?) a small

Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 07/12/2018 04:05 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > >> On 07/12/2018 09:36 AM, mark wrote: >> >>> I just updated the "critical" firefox update, and it is *seriously* >>> buggy. >>> >>> 1. I killed my old session, and started a new. Many (all?) tabs show >>> *nothing* until I put my cursor in the URL bar and

Le 12/07/2018 ? 16:36, mark a ?crit : > I just updated the "critical" firefox update, and it is *seriously* > buggy. I just upgraded Firefox on a sandbox installation, and here's what I noticed so far. 1. On startup, the whole window is black for 1 - 2 seconds, and then Firefox displays OK. 2. Firefox is in english, though my whole system is in French, so I guess translation

On 07/13/2018 09:03 AM, mark wrote: > Johnny Hughes wrote: >> On 07/13/2018 02:36 AM, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: >> >>> Le 12/07/2018 ? 16:36, mark a ?crit : >>> >>>> I just updated the "critical" firefox update, and it is *seriously* >>>> buggy. >>> > <snip> > >> Well .. it is working like the upstream one,

Hello, On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:36:55 -0400 "mark" <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > I just updated the "critical" firefox update, and it is *seriously* buggy. > > 1. I killed my old session, and started a new. Many (all?) tabs show > *nothing* until I put my cursor in the URL bar and hit <enter> [snip] I reproduced this 1. point. I also lost all my tab