https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
--- Comment #5 from Dave Yost ---
This is not about running them in parallel.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Korb ---
If you want to run them in parallel then use gnu parallel. It would keep the
specified unmber of jobs running until it runs out of new jobs.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for th
How would this be different/better than
rsync options source {dest1 dest2 dest3}
? (The brackets cause bash to repeat the command line for each argument
inside the brackets.)
The only thing I can see is what Kevin pointed out about figuring out
which transfer was involved if an error condition re
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
--- Comment #3 from Dave Yost ---
What I'm after is an argument syntax that supports copying to multiple
destinations.
It's fine by me if rsync executes a multiple-destination command via multiple,
sequential copies.
I am not advocating an incomp
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Korb ---
These would be separate rsync (and ssh) connections. What use case would
justify bundling them together into a single rsync session? The only benefit
over multiple exections of rsync would be a lack of per-sessi
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
--- Comment #1 from Dave Yost ---
Something like this would be useful:
rsync foo s1: --add-destinations s2:dir s3:dir
or
rsync foo s1: --to s1: s2:dir s3:~
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
--
Please
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10963
Bug ID: 10963
Summary: rsync to multiple destinations
Product: rsync
Version: 3.0.6
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
On 2014-11-25T20:03:27 +0100
Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
>
> --inplace --partial
>
> The later prevents rsync from discarting partial files, the former makes
> rsync "reuse" already transfered parts and overwriting/appending as
> needed.
>
> You only have to be careful if you use hardlinks
On 25.11.2014 15:02, net.rs...@io7m.com wrote:
> 'Lo.
>
> I've run into a frustrating issue when trying to synchronize a
> directory hierarchy over a reliable (but slow) connection to an
> unreliable remote. Basically, I have the following:
>
> http://mvn-repository.io7m.com/com/io7m/
>
> Thi
you may have a look here:
http://superuser.com/questions/192766/resume-transfer-of-a-single-file-by-rsync
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16572066/resuming-rsync-partial-p-partial-on-a-interrupted-transfer
if you use inplace or append, for security reason you could even run another
rsync "dif
On 2014-11-25T10:27:13 -0600
"Tony Abernethy" wrote:
> (until a better answer comes along)
> The killed rsync process should leave a temporary file ..
> If you rename the temporary to the real file name, rsync should continue
> from about where it left off.
Thanks, that'll at least help to get t
(until a better answer comes along)
The killed rsync process should leave a temporary file ..
If you rename the temporary to the real file name, rsync should continue
from about where it left off.
-Original Message-
From: rsync-boun...@lists.samba.org [mailto:rsync-boun...@lists.samba.org]
'Lo.
I've run into a frustrating issue when trying to synchronize a
directory hierarchy over a reliable (but slow) connection to an
unreliable remote. Basically, I have the following:
http://mvn-repository.io7m.com/com/io7m/
This is a set of nested directories containing binaries and sources
13 matches
Mail list logo
