On Tue 14 Sep 2021 at 08:50:34 (+0200), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 12:17:05PM +1200, Richard Hector wrote: > > On 13/09/21 7:04 pm, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > >On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:45:02AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote: > > >>On 12/09/21 6:52 pm, john doe wrote: > > > > > >[...] > > > > > >>>If you are doing this in a script, I would use a temporary directory. > > >>>That way, in case of failure the destination directory is not rongly > > >>>modified. > > >>> > > >>>EG: > > >>> > > >>>$ rsync <src-dir> <tmp-dir> > > >>> > > >>>Make <tmp-dir> the way you want it to be. > > >>> > > >>>$ rsync <tmp-dir> <dest-dir> > > >> > > >>That is true, but firstly it would require more available space [...] > > > > > >This isn't necessary, as you could replace the second `rsync' by a `mv' > > >(provided your temp tree is on the same storage volume as your target > > >dir, that is). > > > > I was assuming the suggestion was to rsync the source to the temp > > while the destination still exists, before rsyncing or mv'ing over > > the top of it. Total of 3 copies (temporarily) rather than 2. > > Then, it's different. But in your scenario you would probably want > to take down whatever "service" relies on the destination dir while > the copy is in progress.
As I read the first paragraph of the OP, the service relies on the *source* files, and the destination is just the copy, being created and/or updated for testing. I presume that is why the OP is not too worried by failure. > In any case, if you haven't the space, you haven't it. Sysadmin's > life ain't always nice :) Cheers, David.
