Lester Hightower wrote:
I envision the "VFS Change Logger" as a (hopefully very thin) middle-ware
that sits between the kernel's VFS interfaces and a real filesystem, like
ext3, reiser, etc. The "VFS Change Logger" will pass VFS calls to the
underlying filesystem driver, but it will make note of c
H TABLES WITH READ
LOCK;' on the master server. For InnoDB... I don't think it should be a
problem, but you will probably have to shut down mysqld to do the rsync.
> 2.- If so how would i do it? Do i just do a whole copy of the server from
> root?
>
> Please advice, and th
John Van Essen wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Clint Byrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I'm doing daily backups with rsync, and weekly, I run it with
--delete after archiving the whole thing (this way I don't lose any
deleted files). All week long this runs fine, but when I add
ciprian niculescu wrote:
Hello,
I have a problem with "out of memory", I'm trying to sync around 30mil
files and i get error, the sync is on the same host but different
directory, this with the 100bytes per file, give me 3G of ram. I have
put 12G swap (6 partitions of 2G) and my 3G ram. Last i s
les are spread out pretty sporadically, so it would
be a real pain to try and do it in segments. Am I better off just
torching the whole tree on the backup server and retransferring all
60GB? Would it help to upgrade the sending machine to v2.6.3?
Thanks.
--
Clint Byrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
T
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 17:16, Jim Salter wrote:
> But why would you want to use rsync if you've already built your file
> list? Seems kinda pointless... I mean if it got touched, you definitely
> want to copy it, so, yeah. =)
>
And so it seems we've come full circle back to just use tar. ;-)
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 04:42, Hergaarden, Marcel wrote:
> We're running rsync 2.5.7 on a Windows2000 server, in combination with
> cygwin/ssh. The server who receives the data is a Linux server.
>
> The amount of data from the Windows server is about 100 Gb. Represented
> by 532.000 files of differ
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 02:24, Stefan Nehlsen wrote:
> You have one source and many destinations. This looks to me like you
> want to use the batch options of rsync.
>
> Please read about batch mode in the rsync manpage.
>
This looks very promising. I have two concerns:
1) how bad is it if one of
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 14:15, Jim Salter wrote:
> Tim Conway wrote:
>
> > for source in source1 source2 source3
> > do
> > rsync -options $source destination:$source &
> > done
> > wait
> >
> > adapt as needed.
>
> That will WORK, of course, but it does require tha
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 07:48, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Dick - that doesn't answer the man's question.
>
Its a valid question though (asking why not use RAID1 I mean). If we
knew that, we could better serve his rsync question. Or he might not
have realized that for things like this, RAID1 might be bett
On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 14:51, jw schultz wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 02:01:15PM -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Hi everyone. Has anyone experienced rsync 2.6.0 causing huge amounts of
> > system load? Especially on Linux 2.4?
> There aren't too many things that would
Hi everyone. Has anyone experienced rsync 2.6.0 causing huge amounts of
system load? Especially on Linux 2.4?
We recently upgraded our "push" machine to rsync 2.6.0 and the next push
that went out (rsyncing about 3GB of data to 15 servers sequentially
over gigabit ethernet) caused the box to hit 1
12 matches
Mail list logo
