Hello,
In regard to output, rsync has the following features:
a) -v option with various levels of verbosity
b) --stats
c) --log-file=foo
d) messages rsync prints to stdout
e) messages rsync prints to stderr.
Where can I find an explanation of the forma
>
> > Is there some works in the world trying to make a good gui for
> > rsync and to let all people using this very good method to make
> > a backup.
> >
> > If somebody is interesting to create this gui, let me know
>
> --Suresh
Delta Copy: http://www.aboutmyip.com/AboutMyXApp/Delta
Daniel Platteau asked:
> I'm using rsync and I'm very glad, but, in some case, i'm not so
> happy.
>
> Some people are backing up the data with rsync but they have a
> lot of files, more than 10 and 20 Gb of data.
>
> We are using batch files and the task schedulin
Hey all,
I'm looking into a two-way WAN mirror on two boxes running Mac OS X
10.4. It seems that both rsync (with the -u option) and unison could
do this. Any suggestions on how to choose one over the other?
Many thanks,
noam
Noam Birnbaum
http://maccentricsolutions.com/
877.luv.macs x89
I'm using rsync and I'm very glad, but, in some case, i'm not so happy.
Some people are backing up the data with rsync but they have a lot of files,
more than 10 and 20 Gb of data.
We are using batch files and the task scheduling system of windows.
It is difficult to see if the backup is we
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4998
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3554
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
OK, let's say this is the first sync and every file is being transferred.
The checksum for each of the files is cached on the local drive. Then, the
next time you sync, it checks the checksum from the cache against the file
to be copied. If it matches, it skips it. If it doesn't match, it just
t
On 9/30/07, Stephen Zemlicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is some files don't change in size. So I was hoping that the
> checksums could be cached. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought the checksum
> determined what actual blocks were transferred. I suppose it could be
> cached at eith
for now there is no caching - anyway - how should checksums be cached?
if mtime/size is no reliable method for detecting file changes and checksum is
the only method - to detect if you need to update the cache you need to ...
checksum and thus a checksum cache is quite nonsense, imho.
> I s
10 matches
Mail list logo
