At 08:12 19.09.2007 -0700, Keith Lofstrom wrote:
>On 9/18/07, Fabian Cenedese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was wondering what happens if a file that is regularly synched but
>> seldom changes gets corrupted in the copy.
>
>On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:23:28AM +0200, Fabian Cenedese wrote:
>> I was
On 9/18/07, Fabian Cenedese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering what happens if a file that is regularly synched but
> seldom changes gets corrupted in the copy.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:23:28AM +0200, Fabian Cenedese wrote:
> I was asking because I'm responsible for our backups. The
>
On 9/19/07, Fabian Cenedese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanations. That means that -l and -c are not
> usable together as they contradict themselves, right?
Correct. I tested with rsync 2.6.9 and it appears that if you use
both, -c overrides -I.
> I guess if I first made a nor
Fabian Cenedese wrote:
> At 15:15 18.09.2007 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> >On 9/18/07, Fabian Cenedese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I was wondering what happens if a file that is regularly
> synched but
> >> seldom changes gets corrupted in the copy.
> >
> >Are you referring to rsync writing
At 15:15 18.09.2007 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>On 9/18/07, Fabian Cenedese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was wondering what happens if a file that is regularly synched but
>> seldom changes gets corrupted in the copy.
>
>Are you referring to rsync writing corrupted data to the destination
>fil
On 9/18/07, Fabian Cenedese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering what happens if a file that is regularly synched but
> seldom changes gets corrupted in the copy.
Are you referring to rsync writing corrupted data to the destination
file or a problem with the destination filesystem or disk
