On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Matt McCutchen <m...@mattmccutchen.net> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 11:31 +0200, Paul Slootman wrote: >> On Fri 23 Oct 2009, Matt McCutchen wrote: >> > On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 09:15 +0200, Riccardo Iaconelli wrote: >> > > >> > > [r...@popper linksys]# rsync -avz --hard-links test/ test2/ >> > > sending incremental file list >> > > ./ >> > > file1 >> > > file2 >> >> > > Is this a bug or just samba being not reliable for hard links? :-) >> > >> > Probably the latter. You can always strace rsync to check that it is >> > issuing the link(2) call and see what the result is. >> >> Rsync is not even trying the link(2) call, as it doesn't recognize that >> the files are linked; the output would have been: >> >> ./ >> file1 >> file2 => file1 > > You're right. Somehow I was thinking that rsync might silently adjust > its output if hard linking fails, but that doesn't make much sense and > indeed that is not how rsync behaves (I tested).
Looks like this is the problem, even if i get 2 as link count, inode numbers differs. and i guess there is no way to ensure samba will do hard links properly. well, such is life :\ Thanks, -Riccardo -- GPG key: 3D0F6376 When encrypting, please encrypt also for this subkey: 9EBD7FE1 ----- Pace Peace Paix Paz Frieden Pax Pokój Friður Fred Béke 和平 Hasiti Lapé Hetep Malu Mир Wolakota Santiphap Irini Peoch שלום Shanti Vrede Baris Rój Mír Taika Rongo Sulh Mir Py'guapy 평화 -- 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
