Hi all,
I was just wondering if the following bugfix in 2.6.4 was a serious problem
that could cause
a problem in a destination file and if it did would that get picked up by the
checksum ?
Cheers - Steve
- Fixed a potential protocol-corrupting bug where the generator could
merge a messag
I like this a lot - the '--create-fail-action=abort' option would suit
me perfectly - if the creation of the temporary file fails then simply
abort the transfer.
Nice.
Cheers - Steve
An option to specify action would help more, IMHO. Since there is no
two-way chatter, the choices are obviously
I see and it makes sense to optimise the file transfer process, but in
carrying on with a transfer when the temporary file cannot be created can
(in our case) result in quite a large amount of data being transferred
over the network (we have more than a few files in the 6-8GB range) which
is not op
ength);
}
I'm confused why this is the case - is there a reason why this is done ?
Cheers all - Steve
He didn't administer a reign of terror, just the occasional light shower.
- Terry Pratchett, Sourcery
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Steve Harris wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm running
Hi all,
I'm running rsync version 2.6.3 protocol version 28 on Solaris 8 and am
having a problem.
We have some scripts that wrap around rsync and generate a list of files
to transfer from the sending system (regardless of whether that directory
exists on the receiver). I was expecting rsync to
