"rsync version 2.6.6 protocol version 29"
In my source I have a directory that changed to a file. I know this
requires --force or --delete, but using --only-write-batch I get no
error until I attempt to apply the batch.
This confused me for a bit. Is this intended behavior?
Also, unrelatedly
:) Yeah, I noticed that too! A little too coincidental for comfort!
Mike Daws wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 13:50 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:38:25AM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
>>
>>>WARNING: jukebox/Frank_Sinatra/The_Main_Event/04-Let_Me_Try_Again.flac
>>>fai
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 13:50 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:38:25AM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
> > WARNING: jukebox/Frank_Sinatra/The_Main_Event/04-Let_Me_Try_Again.flac
> > failed verification -- update discarded (will try again).
> >
> > What does the "WARNING" imply?
Software protection computer security.
The world belongs to the energetic.
PLEONASM, n. An army of words escorting a corporal of thought.
The secret of success is constancy of purpose.
Minds of moderate caliber ordinarily condemn everything which is beyond their
range.
Never depr
Reach new customers on the internet and grow your business... with dynamic
software, you can!
To achieve the impossible dream, try going to sleep.
A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.
All movements go too far.
Don't take life too seriously. You'll never ge
Software for System Builders, Resellers, and Hardware Purchasers Only.
There ought to be a room in every house to swear in.
The Berlin Wall is the defining achievement of socialism.
The speed of the boss is the speed of the team.
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 01:50:30AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> any news on integrating the rsync diff to libz in the upstream sources?
I doubt that it will ever happen. The one kluge in the current
implementation is that rsync dummies up its own static-data block
for the receiving side to inc
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 06:13:14PM -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> "+ mydir//" would be equivalent to "+ mydir" "+ mydir/**".
Hmm. We do allow "**" to be empty in the pattern "+ **/foo" (matching
/foo). So really, "+ mydir/**" should be enough to also match "mydir/"
by itself. I don't see a down
Wayne Davison wrote:
> It is telling you that the updated file that rsync created didn't match
> the checksum that the sender told us. There are a number of different
> ways this can happen (all of them pretty rare, but not impossible):
Thanks for clearing this up!
> - A block checksum may h
Stéphane Zanoni schrieb:
Hello.
I have been using rsync for a couple of months to provide synchronised
data between two of our servers and have had wonderful success with it.
I was wondering if anyone knew of another tool that might provide the
following:
- "Real-time" push synchroniza
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:38:25AM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
> WARNING: jukebox/Frank_Sinatra/The_Main_Event/04-Let_Me_Try_Again.flac
> failed verification -- update discarded (will try again).
> jukebox/Frank_Sinatra/The_Main_Event/12-My_Way.flac
>
> What does the "WARNING" imply?
It is telling
Hey, I always have my gamma-ray shield with me! :)
But seriously, are you saying this indicates a read or write error?
I've googled for other cases of this, and when there was an error (like
an error reading a mounted partition), the error was reported before the
warning. In my case, no other me
Hello.
I have been using rsync for a couple of months to provide synchronised
data between two of our servers and have had wonderful success with it.
I was wondering if anyone knew of another tool that might provide the
following:
- "Real-time" push synchronization
- rsync like "
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:38:25AM -0700, Joe Peterson wrote:
> WARNING: jukebox/Frank_Sinatra/The_Main_Event/04-Let_Me_Try_Again.flac
> failed verification -- update discarded (will try again).
>
> What does the "WARNING" imply? What could have gone wrong? I cannot
> reproduce it. When I did a
I've been using rsync for a long time, and it's very cool. For the
first time, last night, I got a message I don't understand. I am using
rsync 2.6.4 on Fedora (FC4) Linux to a Fedora (FC3) Linux machine. The
command I am using is:
rsync -av --delete-excluded --exclude="*~" --exclude="#*#"
rem
I woùlld. Like. To be haired. By digitals planet com
Egisto Formai
+393483812776
--
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
I can answer this one! But mostly by directing you to an even better
answer that is already written.
Reading this article by Mike Rubel
http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/
Should give you some detailed idea of how to use the --link-dest
feature.
There is a tool called 'dirvish
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3305
--- Comment #1 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-12-07 05:10 MST ---
The comment about always copying 50% of the files to a mounted Windows
directory pretty much identifies the problem.
See the --modify-window option for the solution.
--
C
Hi,
This is my rsync command
/usr/bin/rsync --compress \ --verbose \ --rsh=ssh \ --times \ --owner \ --group \ --ignore-times \
--links \ --p
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3305
Summary: -t copies always too many files to mounted windows
volume -c copies no files
Product: rsync
Version: 2.6.7
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
20 matches
Mail list logo
