I'm interested in this patch.
It is useful for situation where you want to do contentious replication of
files.
Since I was not in the list by the time you sent those patches, would you
please forward them to me?
Marian
On 04/07/2014 02:20 PM, Arvid Requate wrote:
Hello,
are there any other opinions about the suggested patch?
It adds an option "--dirs-update", which handles directories in a similar way
as "--update" handles files. We face a certain situation where this is useful.
Suggestions to improve the patch are welcome.
Arvid
Am Montag, 20. Januar 2014, 16:44:02 schrieb Arvid Requate:
Hello,
thanks for your comments. Attached you may find a git patch based on the
master branch. The patch adds a new rsync option which helps in our use
case of replicating Samba 4 sysvol directories. In this specific case
fACLs, xattrs and modification timestamps of subfolders of the target can
get modified by Windows client tools in between subsequent rsync runs. If
this happens, they should not be overwritten to avoid inconsistencies and
client side error messages.
To achive this, the patch implements an option "--dirs-update" to let rsync
skip changes to directories in case the target directory has a more recent
modification timestamp than the source directory *and* the direct content of
the directories is the same. This option can be regarded as complementary
to the existing option "--update", which does pretty much the same for
files. The patch also provides a script for the testsuite.
Maybe the patch is also useful for others. If it doesn't inflict any
collateral damage on the general behaviour of rsync (e.g. the incremental
recursion), maybe it would be worthwile to submit it as an enhancement bug
to the bugzilla. Any opinions about this or suggestions for imrovement?
On 16.01.2014 01:31:38, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
- rsync doesn't determine if atime/mtime is bigger/smaller, it only
determines if they are identical or not.
From looking at the function cmp_time in util.c and its use in generator.c I
obtained the impression that time ordering is explicitely considered. My
patch makes use of this function. Also the description of the option
"--update" in the manual page ("skip files that are newer") seems to
support this impression.
I'm aware of the unidirectional nature of rsync you pointed out. We use
rsync to let two machines pull the content of a certain directory tree and
let them take turns at that. Modification time ordering is essential for
this. Since Samba doesn't implement DFS replication yet we have to rely on
this.
Cheers,
Arvid
--
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
