On 3/11/2022 4:39 AM, Dr. Mark Asbach via rsync wrote:
a) Using ssh-askpass, we can use the options -e "ssh -X"
--rsync-path="sudo -A rsync" (see https://askubuntu.com/a/1167758).
The problem in our scenario is that using ansible, we run the
identical rsync command on multiple hosts in parallel
Wayne Davison wrote:
Good point. I'm going to include the ability to transfer a > 4-byte
time_t value for protocol 30. We'll need to consider what should be
done if a value is too large for the destination system to handle.
Emit a WARNING and set to MAX_TIME_T on the destination? It's either
Wayne Davison wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Jon Burgess wrote:
I use rsync as a backup tool (via rsnapshot) and noticed that it had a
problem with a couple of files which had timestamps way off in the
future.
That's a unix-time limitation. The current timestamp resolution c
Aaron W Morris wrote:
On 4/18/07, Carson Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lawrence D. Dunn wrote:
> Colleagues,
> If you do pursue SSL functionality directly in rsync,
> please be sure to take a look at Chris Rapier's work
> to "fix" standard
Lawrence D. Dunn wrote:
Colleagues,
If you do pursue SSL functionality directly in rsync,
please be sure to take a look at Chris Rapier's work
to "fix" standard ssh implementations, at:
http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/
Turns out "-e ssh" using most libraries puts a fixed
Wayne Davison wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:58:38AM -0700, Carson Gaspar wrote:
Looking at the current code in CVS, it appears that rsync does not
currently support ACLs or XATTRs for Solaris ZFS filesystems
Does Solaris 10 not use posix ACLs and xattrs? I've only tested rsync
on so
Looking at the current code in CVS, it appears that rsync does not
currently support ACLs or XATTRs for Solaris ZFS filesystems (at least
not completely - I'm not sure how UFS/ZFS auto ACL format conversion
works). It shouldn't be too hard to add support, especially as ZFS now
uses NFSv4 ACLs.
--On Sunday, July 23, 2006 9:35 PM -0700 Tom Limoncelli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/23/06, Dan Stromberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It'd be pretty cool if rsync supported use of O_DIRECT on platforms that
support it, with or without my odirect package:
It would be great benefit for Linu
--On Thursday, May 04, 2006 11:08 PM -0400 Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well I'm using neither Samba nor Cygwin but cwRsync. The WinXP users
RTFM - "cw"Rsync = Cygwin Rsync. You're using cygwin whether you think you
are or not.
--
Carson
--
To unsubscribe or change options: https://li
--On Friday, March 03, 2006 9:21 AM -0500 Linus Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This is certainly not true for the source machine. It typically has 70gb
free (it's still running a 32-bit Oracle database server). The
destination machine started out with about 2.8gb free. I will run it
again and
--On Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:48 PM +0100 Torbjörn Nordling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Problem:
I have two computers (one at work and one home) and I want to keep them
identical, but I cannot rsync them directly because when one is running
then the second is turned off. I also have access t
--On Wednesday, February 01, 2006 7:47 PM -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Comment #4 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-02-01 19:47 MST ---
OK, I just checked in some changes that make rsync use sigaction() and
sigprocmask() if they are available (otherwise signal() continues to be
used).
--On Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:56 AM +0100 Manuel López-Ibáñez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This setup seems to work well--perhaps it could be added to the rsync
FAQ page as Method 2b. The only annoyance is that one might still get
two indistinguishable "Password:" prompts; could someone t
--On Thursday, October 20, 2005 12:53 PM -0700 Wayne Davison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:29:21PM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
$ ssh -L :target:22 -N -f [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Password: middlepass
Port-forwarding 22 is a great idea as long as ssh is configured not to
--On Monday, May 23, 2005 03:24:07 PM +0200 Edwin Eefting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
My idea is to create a patch for something like a --cache option that
will use a cached version of the filelist: This way instead of creating
the filelist every time (100.000's of system calls, diskaccesses),
--On Wednesday, January 05, 2005 21:51:25 +0100 Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
As you picked up correctly from the previous thread, it's not atomic, I
called it near-atomic.
But it's a trade-off between not having to hardlink a whole lot of files
(in my case 300.000 files for each transac
--On Thursday, January 06, 2005 02:59:44 +0800 Jeff Pitman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the past there's been a need to provide consistency between symbolic
links or repository metadata during a sync. Currently, rsync renames
files piecemeal. The attached patch (extremely ugly) attempts to
res
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 13:04:23 -0600 Drew Lippolt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
none of these had any effect, surprisingly.
Really? Exec()ing "/bin/bash", "-c", "rsync
--
Carson
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read:
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 10:13:58 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-11-19 10:13
--- The cited strace shows that rsync is hanging because of all the
verbose messages coming from the receiver aren't getting read by the
sender. So, just
--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 13:39:24 -0700 Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What do you think? Rsync has always moved a finished file into place,
even if it fails the full-file checksum. I'm wondering if this is
really a good idea. Perhaps that should only occur if the --partial
flag
--On Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:58 AM -0800 Wayne Davison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Regardless, you weren't entirely clear what prompted you to mention
this. Inefficiency? Or a compatibility bug?
In thinking about multi-version compatibility, it seems to me that if a
2.5.x client/receiver w
--On Monday, March 29, 2004 15:48:06 -0800 Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 06:07:33PM -0500, Carson Gaspar wrote:
If it would be accepted, I'd happily submit a patch fixing up signal
handling to only use the nice, functional POSIX API.
I'd
--On Monday, March 29, 2004 16:42:09 +0200 Pontus Skoeld
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've recently tried rsync in daemon mode on AIX. Unfortunately, after
handling connections, the daemon segfaulted. I've located this problem
to the signal handler for SIGCHLD in socket.c - it seems reinstalling
th
Why not (given char array a of size 100):
a[0] = -1;
memset((void *)&a[1], a[0], 99);
Or just pass a -1 to memset...
--On Tuesday, January 27, 2004 9:36 AM -0800 Wayne Davison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The match.c code has a loop that initializes an array to -1. I'm
considering changing this
--On Wednesday, January 07, 2004 03:10:23 -0800 jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I've lost track of the number of times someone has
complained on this list because blah/blah/* didn't behave as
he expected and the problem went away when he dropped the
unnecessary wildcard.
Hmmm... given the
If rsync is invoked with -vvv, it invokes the server with -vvv as well.
Testing with a client -> server sync:
During recv_file_name(), the server does:
if (verbose > 2) {
rprintf(FINFO, "recv_file_name(%s)\n",
f_name(flist->
--On Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:52 PM -0700 jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:36:31PM -0400, Carson Gaspar wrote:
...
I don't, however, think that the rsync protocol is the right place to
fix
it(speaking about normal rsync +rsh/ssh/whatever, no
--On Friday, September 05, 2003 12:45 PM +1000 Martin Pool
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 Atom 'Smasher' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
obviously, allowing root logins through ssh (or any protocol, really)
is best avoided.
Can you explain why you hold that opinion?
Speaking as a securit
--On Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:16 AM -0700 jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Impossible with simple user/group permissions.
Not impossible. I've done that sort of thing many times.
-rwxr-x---1 charlie cdab 3658 Jan 20 17:35 .
-rw-rw-r--1 charlie david3658 Jan 20
--On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:01 PM -0700 jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'd say that a security regimen that requires xattrs to
tighten security is misguided.
And you'd be wrong. Simple user/group security is not _nearly_ enough for
all sorts of use cases. Simple use case:
- Alice an
--On Wednesday, June 18, 2003 09:40:22 -0400 Michael Kohne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Finally figured the problem out. It turns out that our daemon wasn't
clearing the signal mask before execing the child. Rsync seems to use some
signals for the various processes to communicate with each other,
--On Wednesday, May 28, 2003 13:26:17 -0400 Andrew Klein
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe J.W. Schultz replied to this but I lost it since I was not yet
fully subscribed to the list. He rightly suggested that the a portable
getpass() would be non-trivial. An alternate suggestion though: S
There is a rather major issue with excludes when using modules. I've seen
no mention of this outside of vague warnings in the rsynd.conf man page.
Given:
[test]
path = /tmp/foo
exclude = /bar/baz
And a file /tmp/foo/bar/baz/biff
rsync -avvH rsync://server/test/ /mydir/
correctl
33 matches
Mail list logo
