https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #41 from Mihnea-Costin Grigore ---
The discussion about file systems like ZFS/BTRFS/etc. and their various
snapshot mechanisms is off-topic relative to this feature request, since they
are very different technologies used for different p
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #39 from andy ---
> This feature request is so old it has lost relavence because btrfs/zfs/etc
> are more optimal backup solutions than rsync.
Funny I am doing exactly this, but I came to rsync looking for a backup for
when ZFS fails.
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #38 from Claudius Ellsel ---
This basically is some personal preference. I know that I can do this on btrfs
(which is used on the system I want to back up from), also pretty easy with
tools like snapper. Maybe it would be feasible to do
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #37 from elatl...@gmail.com ---
The btrfs equivalent is a bit more rough but (link for rename);
#./btrfs-snapshots-diff.py -sb -p /media/btrfs/v_1/s_1 -c /media/btrfs/v_1/s_2
| grep -E path=. | grep -v utimes | tail -n +2
link;path=fileB
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #36 from elatl...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Claudius Ellsel from comment #35)
> This is going off-topic
On such an old bug with modern workarouds I think it's worth talking about.
> backup drive is NTFS currently, which would complicat
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #35 from Claudius Ellsel ---
(In reply to elatllat from comment #34)
>Yes you can easily access files on a COW-FS backup; it's a file system, that's
>>what it's for.
This is going off-topic, but my backup drive is NTFS currently, which
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #34 from elatl...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Claudius Ellsel from comment #33)
Yes you can easily access files on a COW-FS backup; it's a file system, that's
what it's for.
If you want to review changes before backup you can just diff or
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #33 from Claudius Ellsel ---
Hm, those backups won't work on file level, though afaik. Thus I cannot easily
access files on a backup drive for example. Also I want to use this as some
kind of confirm stage a bit like committing with git
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #32 from elatl...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Claudius Ellsel from comment #31)
Yes any COW FS with "send/receive" will have inherent rename handaling, and
will be faster than rsync because the diffs are inherent. With zfs one can even
hav
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #31 from Claudius Ellsel ---
To me and others it still seems relevant.
I have to admit though that I haven't looked much into other solutions for
backups like btrfs send/receive commands. I suppose that were the ones you
meant? Note tha
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #30 from elatl...@gmail.com ---
This feature request is so old it has lost relavence because btrfs/zfs/etc are
more optimal backup solutions than rsync.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
--
Ple
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #29 from Claudius Ellsel ---
As another motivation for this, I use rsync for backups and would like to be
able to see whether files have just been renamed or were deleted and some
others newly created (which currently cannot be distingui
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
Claudius Ellsel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||claudius.ell...@live.de
--- Comment #28 f
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #27 from Wolfgang Hamann ---
Hi,
I recently ran into the problem that a large file set got renamed and then
re-sent. I tried to fix after the fact, so I went the obvious way of comparing
sizes and modtimes on the destination and calcula
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #26 from Ben RUBSON ---
### What's the diff between --fuzzy and --detect-renamed ?
If I understand correctly, --fuzzy looks only in destination folder, for either
a file that has an identical size and modified-time, or a similarly-named
On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:20:16 +
samba-b...@samba.org wrote:
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
>
> --- Comment #23 from dajo...@gmail.com ---
> Looking for this capability prior to entering it as an enhancement request
> myself, I found everything here and basically have the sam
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #25 from Andrey Gursky ---
On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:20:16 +
samba-b...@samba.org wrote:
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
>
> --- Comment #23 from dajo...@gmail.com ---
> Looking for this capability prior to entering
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #24 from Karl O. Pinc ---
On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 22:20:16 +
samba-b...@samba.org wrote:
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
>
> --- Comment #23 from dajo...@gmail.com ---
> Looking for this capability prior to entering i
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #23 from dajo...@gmail.com ---
Looking for this capability prior to entering it as an enhancement request
myself, I found everything here and basically have the same use case. My
version is that I am creating a regular backup of logs fro
Isn't this pretty much what specifying --fuzzy --fuzzy (twice) is
supposed to do?
Joe
On 01/03/2015 04:23 PM, samba-b...@samba.org wrote:
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
>
> --- Comment #22 from elatl...@gmail.com ---
> Wow 10 years.
> Maybe one reason this has not been implemen
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #22 from elatl...@gmail.com ---
Wow 10 years.
Maybe one reason this has not been implemented is there are other options.
For example I have been using a shell script as a wrapper to reduce the
iteration of this bug, here is how it works:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #21 from Petr Pisar 2014-06-02 16:47:06 UTC
---
There is a bug #8847 in the patchset when partial-dir cannot be created. The
fix is described there.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #20 from kevin.la...@gmail.com 2014-03-02 03:08:37 UTC ---
I've been playing with the --detect-renamed patch
https://git.samba.org/?p=rsync-patches.git;a=blob;f=detect-renamed.diff;h=c3e6e846eab437e56e25e2c334e292996ee84345;hb=master
I c
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #19 from Norman Freudenberg 2014-01-04 22:56:00 UTC
---
Hey as far I found out there are two patches which still note made it into the
last official release?
They are still buggy?
Why didn't it made it to an official release?
9 Years
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #18 from bug me not 2012-12-08 10:05:46 UTC
---
Has this issue been abandoned? It's been a "while"...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You ar
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #17 from bugzilla.samba@zmi.at 2011-02-04 13:43 CST ---
Damn, that was too easy ;-) Thanks a lot. I'll test the new detect-renamed*
patches now.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #16 from ma...@sonadresse.com 2011-02-04 10:22 CST ---
you don't need git to get the sources : http://samba.anu.edu.au/ftp/rsync/
and choose "rsync-3.0.7.tar.gz" and "rsync-patches-3.0.7.tar.gz"
Ben
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #15 from bugzilla.samba@zmi.at 2011-02-04 02:50 CST ---
How to apply those 2 detect-renamed* patches? I did
git clone git://git.samba.org/rsync.git
and tried to
patch -p1 https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #14 from ma...@sonadresse.com 2011-01-29 02:10 CST ---
Hi Paul,
As mentionned previously, two patches have been developped (detect-renamed.diff
et detect-renamed-lax.diff)
http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=rsync-patches.git;a=blob;
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #13 from phr-sa...@nightsong.com 2011-01-28 20:40 CST ---
x
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug,
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #12 from phr-sa...@nightsong.com 2011-01-28 20:38 CST ---
Hi, I was about to enter a similar suggestion to this. My very frequent use
case is moving files from one directory to another. In that situation the file
name does
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #11 from phil.ganc...@gmail.com 2010-10-28 00:31 CST ---
Here are some related discussions about this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/rsync@lists.samba.org/msg20283.html
http://markmail.org/message/kmazkprjvred2r5a
--
Confi
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
way...@samba.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla.samba@zmi.at
--- Com
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
sha...@shahar-or.co.il changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sha...@shahar-or.co.il
---
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #8 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-30 17:24 CST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Thanks. This will be especially useful for log directories where logrotate is
> incrementing the filename number at each rotation period (httpd.10
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #7 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-10-10 16:09 CST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Is the patch not included in 2.6.9 or did I miss something?
Correct, --detect-renamed still exists as a patch; it is not in the main
version of rs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #6
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-03-21 14:06 MST ---
Thanks. This will be especially useful for log directories where logrotate is
incrementing the filename number at each rotation period (httpd.10.gz ->
httpd.11.gz).
--
Co
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Comment #4 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-02-07 07:25 MST ---
There is now a patch named detect_renamed.diff in the patches dir that
implements the basics of finding renamed files. This will probably go onto the
trunk for the release a
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-13 22:24 ---
Note that the --fuzzy patch has made it into the CVS version. It only looks for
renamed files in the same directory as the file being created, though, so it is
not a fu
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2294
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-11 01:58 ---
I totally agree this one. With this enhancement there would be no longer
unnecessary traffic when some user has moved / copy'ed a large directory (which
is really annoyi
42 matches
Mail list logo
