On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 18:44 +0200, devz...@web.de wrote:
> > devz...@web.de wrote:
> > > so, instead of 500M i would transfer 100GB over the network.
> > > that`s no option.
> >
> > I don't see how you came up with such numbers.
> > If files change completely then I don't see why
> > you would tra
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1890
--- Comment #4 from marin...@osuosl.org 2009-08-07 14:52 CST ---
stunnel is usable but it is rather annoying to use for something like pulling
backups over rsync using something like dirvish. In that case every host being
backed up will
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6543
--- Comment #4 from d...@yost.com 2009-08-07 12:01 CST ---
I mean that when it prints a crash message giving file name and line number, it
should also give this information, with or without -v.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.s
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6543
--- Comment #3 from d...@yost.com 2009-08-07 12:00 CST ---
I mean that when it crashes and gives a source filename and line number, it
should also report the last successful file transfer. With or without -v.
--
Configure bugmail: htt
> devz...@web.de wrote:
> > so, instead of 500M i would transfer 100GB over the network.
> > that`s no option.
>
> I don't see how you came up with such numbers.
> If files change completely then I don't see why
> you would transfer more (or less) over the network.
> The difference that I'm thinki
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4383
devz...@web.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devz...@web.de
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2296
devz...@web.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devz...@web.de
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1890
devz...@web.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devz...@web.de
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6553
devz...@web.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devz...@web.de
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6293
devz...@web.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devz...@web.de
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5520
devz...@web.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devz...@web.de
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4168
devz...@web.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devz...@web.de
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3371
devz...@web.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devz...@web.de
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6543
devz...@web.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||devz...@web.de
--- Comment #2 from
it`s even worse:
> Number of files: 44
> Number of files transferred: 1
> Total file size: 59 bytes
> Total transferred file size: 27793 bytes
this is wrong. that`s the size of the file which failed to transfer. so it
should not be added to the total transfer file size, shouldn`t it ?
>
hello,
with --stats, shouldn`t we differ between "number of files transferred" and
"number of files failed" ?
the problem is, that i have files which ALWAYS fail on transfer, and to check
for "number of files failed"<=2 would be the best way for me to check if the
overall transfer was ok.
if
Hello,
i just came across the sparse-block patch.
i`m using rsync to store vmware vmdk virtual disks to a zfs filesystem.
vmdk files have large portions of zeroed data and when thin provisioned (not
being used yet), they even may be sparse.
on the target, after writing to zfs the zeroes are al
so, instead of 500M i would transfer 100GB over the network.
that`s no option.
besides that, for transferring complete files i know faster methods than rsync.
one more question:
how safe is transferring a 100gb file, i.e. as rsync is using checksums
internally to compare the contents of two fil
18 matches
Mail list logo
