On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:52:17AM -0800, Jos Backus wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:07:04AM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote: > > It isn't clear to me that the -z option makes sense for batch mode anyway. > > Perhaps turning the rsync_* files into a gzipped tarball before sending > > them to the remote machines would have better compression. I guess some > > measurements would need to be done, but of course in order to do that you'd > > need to have -z mode working. > > OK, that sounds reasonable, I'll just add a note to the batch mode description > then.
It should do more, it should block -z from being used with --write-batch. > Btw, what about the other patch (the one that adds --write-batch=prefix, among > others), does it work for you? I didn't have a chance to try it before now. I see the rsync_argvs is saying --write-batch instead of --read-batch. The patch to not turn on -W when using batch mode works ok. > And can you perhaps show me how to create a > setup where the batch files are created in your homedir, which is the other > problem you were seeing? The rsync_argvs file gets written every time no matter what the setup. Looking at the code, it's clear why: write_batch_argvs_file() is getting called from main(), which is run on both the client and server side. - Dave Dykstra
