On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 03:26:41PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 09:11:59PM +0000, Chris G wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 02:50:26PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 06:29:47PM +0000, Chris G wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:54:23AM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 03:37:45PM -0800, John Magolske wrote: > > > > > > After doing an rsync backup, the "N" preceding mailboxes with new > > > > > > mail > > > > > > is removed from all mailboxes. I suppose this is a result of the > > > > > > mbox > > > > > > files being touched somehow by the rsync process. Is there any way > > > > > > to > > > > > > prevent this? > > > > > > > > > > Use rsync -t. This preserves the file modification times on the > > > > > mailboxes. Note that it may be possible that there will be a race > > > > > condition causing mail folders which have mail delivered during the > > > > > rsync to not show new mail. If this happens at all, it will most > > > > > likely be pretty rare (i.e. it will still be much better than losing > > > > > the N flag on *all* mailboxes every time). > > > > > > > > > Surely "rsync -t" means *copy* the modification time to the destination, > > > > what the OP wants is to preserve the modification and access times of > > > > the source files being copied (I think). > > > > > > Surely you are mistaken. :) > > > > > In what the "rsync -t" means or in what the OP wanted? :-) > > The former. It does what I said, and (at least when the destination > is local and you do not specify an alternative program to use) does > *not* do what you said, though I admit, it seems like it ought to, or > that there should be two separate flags that control access time > preservation for each source and destination files. If you don't > believe me, try it... then run stat on all the files you copied. > I did. > Er, surely copying a file won't change the modification time of the copied file anyway will it?
-- Chris Green
