On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 17:08 +0800, Daniel.Li wrote: > Dear Wayne, > Excellent, that's really what I have expected! > > Is it stable now? Cause I have found that this feature seems to be > unstable before ver 3.0.6. > > - Fixed a --read-batch hang when rsync is reading a batch file that was > created from an incremental-recursion transfer. > > http://samba.anu.edu.au/ftp/rsync/src/rsync-3.0.6-NEWS
We can never guarantee stability (no warranty, etc.). Normally I would encourage you to try it and report back if you run into trouble, but I realize that isn't acceptable if you're relying on being able to recover from previously created batch files. In this case, I would recommend that you disable incremental recursion with --no-i-r when generating the batch files. Incremental recursion was a far-reaching change that has had and is still having a lot of fallout, including the bug you cited. I raised concern about this in the lead-up to rsync 3.0.0, but the prevailing opinion seemed to be that we should go ahead and make it the default and deal with any bugs as they arose: http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2007-July/018024.html > And one more thing here: > If you are going to prepare this batch file, it seems there will be double > the workload of network, see below statements? Is that right? > > > rsync -av --only-write-batch=/batches/$DATE bhost:/backup2/ /backup/ > > rsync -av /backup/ bhost:/backup2/ Not if you put /backup and /backup2 on the same machine by dropping the "bhost:" from those commands, as Wayne mentioned. He included it just to point out the possibility of having those dirs on different machines. -- Matt -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
