Dear Wayne, On Sunday 19 December 2004 11:18 am, you wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 09:50:53PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I then tried again and started the rsync script on the directory > > again, and it ended without copying over any more stuff, as far as I > > can see - size wise and number of subdirectories. :(. > > Did it output an error? Or end normally? If it did not output an error, > it believes that the files you asked it to transfer are up-to-date. Since it takes a long time, and i am logging in via dialup, I don't see how to capture errors, particularly those at the other end... I am reading a nice talk by Dr. A Tridgell in which he says to use the --rsync-path command to substitute a wrapper script on the destination in order to do cool things before and after running the rsync, but i have not figured out how to do this so that i can capture the error messages on destination machine... I know that there are messages, cause i was logged on once onto the destination while i was doing a rsync and i saw errors due to permission problems on the destination directory. So if you have an easy sample script to use to capture them i will be very grateful!
I also notice that my machine is running redhat 7.3 with rsync 2.5.4. I am interested in moving my machines over to debian sarge, (as soon as I get the machines backed up :) ). Then i will have a more modern rsync! So far, i reran rsync using a perl script and the subdirectory approach (infinitely less memory usage) and in fact the sizes of the total directories seem to be roughly the same (i wanted to get the 2 df values on the two machines to be equal, but at least they are very close). By the way that raises a second question: How can i verify that i have rsync'd successfully with a second method other than just rsync again. I note that now rsync ends very fast, meaning that rsync is certain all is ok. Is there a well known better second check i can do, other than look for identical du or df? Thanks !!! Mitchell Thanks > > > So my question, what are the size limitations on this sort of stupid > > original way of doing it? > > The maximum file count is mainly limited by memory. Figure that it > probably takes 100 bytes or so per file/directory in the transfer list. > If you're not using a modern rsync (2.6.3 is the latest) this memory > requirement will be much higher, particularly on the receiving system: > the receiving side forks off an extra rsync process, which should share > a lot of the same memory as the parent process (if your fork uses copy- > on-write memory-sharing). Depending on your OS and the age of your > rsync (modern ones do a better job of keeping the memory shared between > the processes), the receiving side's memory use could bloat to be double > what the sending side needs. Your best bet is to just run the command > and look at memory use, keeping an eye on the total proces size and (on > the receiving side) how much memory is shared. > > ..wayne.. -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
