Original Message
Subject: Re: Should no-tweak mode become the default?
From: Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rsync@lists.samba.org
Date: 05/10/2008 12:04 PM
> ...
> My two cents...
> A backup system should at the least ensure that the last version is
> correct. If it has
Original Message
Subject: Re: Should no-tweak mode become the default?
From: Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Matt McCutchen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05/09/2008 11:25 PM
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 09:34:07PM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>> This is to continue my discussion
Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 06:25:36PM -0700, Carl E. Thompson wrote:
>
>> This patch causes rsync to honor the absence of the "--inplace" option
>> for permission, owner and group changes.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, that's not w
he backups. It does not require any changes to the
configuration or use of the clients, server or backup system to achieve
this benefit.
*I do not mean to imply by this that *chroot()*, particularly the way
it's used by rsync, is more than trivial protection but it can help make
things a little safer.
T
.samba.org/archive/rsync/2007-December/019470.html> comes
> to my mind which deals with a situation similar to yours (if I haven't
> misread your description): rsync daemon on server, no changes on
> clients,
> clients "push" backups to server, server handles snapshots
issue? Please steer me in the right direction if there is anything
I'm doing wrong with my request.
Any type of acknowledgment at all would be appreciated!
Thank you,
Carl Thompson
Carl E. Thompson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is my first post to the list.
>
> Is it possi
Hello,
This is my first post to the list.
Is it possible to specify the --link-dest option server-side in the
rsyncd.conf file? What I'd like to do is implement incremental snapshot
backups without having to change the clients which all just do regular
dumps to the rsync server. I'd like
