> > Perhaps i've misunderstood what you're attempting to do; however, if
> > you simply want to exclude some files (not delete them), then you
> > should be using --exclude instead.
> >
> > As far as the time requirement is concerned, you may wish to
> > consider generating the file listing ahead
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:04:48 +0530 "piyush joshi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear All,
>I want to exclude some files from the backup server. I got
> this option --delete-excluded but i want to only exclude those files
> which are older than one month from the current date and does no
On Mon 03 Dec 2007, piyush joshi wrote:
>I am new to rsync command and i need your help .I have one
> mail server I take the back up of mail server on backup server but what
> happen all users delete there mail's from mail server but that does'nt
> deleted from back up server after
> And a performance question: would it be faster to pass the complete list
> of
> datafiles to rsync in one fell swoop, for instance using --files-from
> rather
> than running rsync individually on each one?
It would be somewhat faster to pass the entire list because you incur
the overhead of
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 06:40:20AM -0800, lsk wrote:
> - with datafiles in dsetination takes more time
I assume you could use --whole-file instead of removing the destination
files manually.
..wayne..
--
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before post
> I have been using the following syntax..
>
> rsync -cvz /d01/app/testfile1.dbf tarser:/t01/app/testfile1.dbf
>
> but I would change to the one below and test a 40 GB transfer and see the
> results...
>
> rsync -zv --no-whole-file --stats /d01/app/testfile2.dbf
> tarser:/t01/app/testfile2.db
Carson Gaspar wrote:
--On Friday, March 03, 2006 9:21 AM -0500 Linus Hicks
Please configure your email client to not quote email addresses...
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
desti
--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
Wayne Davison wrote:
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 09:21:25AM -0500, Linus Hicks wrote:
I'm transferring one file, which is obvious from my command line. Is the
FAQ incorrect?
The FAQ is incomplete in how the size of the file can affect the sender's
memory. If the destination file already exists, t
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 09:21:25AM -0500, Linus Hicks wrote:
> I'm transferring one file, which is obvious from my command line. Is the
> FAQ incorrect?
The FAQ is incomplete in how the size of the file can affect the sender's
memory. If the destination file already exists, the sender needs to b
Linus Hicks wrote:
Wayne Davison wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:07:14PM -0500, Linus Hicks wrote:
I do not understand the exceeding long times shown in the last two
runs.
Since the user/sys CPU time didn't also mushroom, I would suggest that
you check to see if your system ran out of free
Wayne Davison wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:07:14PM -0500, Linus Hicks wrote:
I do not understand the exceeding long times shown in the last two
runs.
Since the user/sys CPU time didn't also mushroom, I would suggest that
you check to see if your system ran out of free memory and started t
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:07:14PM -0500, Linus Hicks wrote:
> I do not understand the exceeding long times shown in the last two
> runs.
Since the user/sys CPU time didn't also mushroom, I would suggest that
you check to see if your system ran out of free memory and started to
thrash as memory wa
Linus, I was looking at your 1.6 GB rsync transfers, the "initial copy"
without that file on the destination is faster than that of using
"--inplace" and not using inplace option. I also came across the same
results but still I am trying with some other datafiles to again confirm.
All the tests
Here's my contribution to information on performance. There are two different
cases. The first is a 1.6gb file that has a low volume of updates. The second
case is a 4gb file that has a high volume. All are non-local transfers. I do not
understand the exceeding long times shown in the last two r
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 07:45:20AM -0800, lsk wrote:
>
>
> Matt I have strange results to report I transferred 300 oracle datafiles of
> total 30 GB in size. Using the option " rsync -zv --no-whole-file --stats"
> it took 1:15 min and using "rsync -cvz" options earlier had took 1:25 min so
> the
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 07:43 -0800, lsk wrote:
> Matt I have strange results to report I transferred 300 oracle datafiles of
> total 30 GB in size. Using the option " rsync -zv --no-whole-file --stats"
> it took 1:15 min and using "rsync -cvz" options earlier had took 1:25 min so
> there wasn't much
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 09:20 -0500, Linus Hicks wrote:
> rsync -a srchost:/ / --files-from=dbf-list
>
> and dbf-list would contain this:
>
> p02/oradata/OSID/redo01.log
> p03/oradata/OSID/redo02.log
> p04/oradata/OSID/redo03.log
> p01/oradata/OSID/system01.dbf
> p04/oradata/OSID/undotbs01.dbf
> p0
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 11:08 -0800, lsk wrote:
> I have been using the following syntax..
>
> rsync -cvz /d01/app/testfile1.dbf tarser:/t01/app/testfile1.dbf
>
> but I would change to the one below and test a 40 GB transfer and see the
> results...
>
> rsync -zv --no-whole-file --stats /d01/ap
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 11:08 -0800, lsk wrote:
> I have been using the following syntax..
>
> rsync -cvz /d01/app/testfile1.dbf tarser:/t01/app/testfile1.dbf
>
> but I would change to the one below and test a 40 GB transfer and see the
> results...
>
> rsync -zv --no-whole-file --stats /d01/ap
Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 06:58 -0800, lsk wrote:
Could you give an example with syntax for rsync using file
option "--files-rom=FILE".
If my-list in the current directory contains
a
b
b/c
b/d
b/d
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 06:58 -0800, lsk wrote:
> Could you give an example with syntax for rsync using file
> option "--files-rom=FILE".
If my-list in the current directory contains
a
b
b/c
b/d
b/d/e ,
then the command
>>And a performance question: would it be faster to pass the complete list of
>>datafiles to rsync in one fell swoop, for instance using --files-from
rather
>>than running rsync individually on each one?
>
>
> It would be somewhat faster to pass the entire list because you incur
> the overhead
Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 18:40 -0500, Linus Hicks wrote:
I did something similar to what lsk is doing a few months back, I believe using
rsync 2.6.5. I wrote a script to query the database for all the datafiles and
rsync'ed them individually by specifying the full path to th
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 18:40 -0500, Linus Hicks wrote:
> I did something similar to what lsk is doing a few months back, I believe
> using
> rsync 2.6.5. I wrote a script to query the database for all the datafiles and
> rsync'ed them individually by specifying the full path to the file. What I
Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 11:08 -0800, lsk wrote:
/// lsk:- Thanks for the clarification Wayne, in my case no one
would be allowed to use the destination file until the process is
complete. As soon as my destination server is upgraded to the newer
version of rsync whic
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 11:08 -0800, lsk wrote:
> /// lsk:- Thanks for the clarification Wayne, in my case no one
> would be allowed to use the destination file until the process is
> complete. As soon as my destination server is upgraded to the newer
> version of rsync which supports --inpla
Wayne Davison-2 wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 05:58:26AM -0800, lsk wrote:
>> 2) And Matt could explain little more on what do you mean by "atomicity"
>
> What he meant is that, without --inplace, rsync creates an updated file
> and moves it into place, making the update atomic (i.e. none
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 05:58:26AM -0800, lsk wrote:
> 2) And Matt could explain little more on what do you mean by "atomicity"
What he meant is that, without --inplace, rsync creates an updated file
and moves it into place, making the update atomic (i.e. none of the
destination files are ever in
Hello,
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 05:58 -0800, lsk wrote:
> I am back with the results..here are the options I tried on a 7.0 GB file.
>
> =>No file on target (rm the file on the target and rsync) with "rsync -czv"
> it took 1 hr.
> =>File on target with but header info change on source with "rsync -
I am back with the results..here are the options I tried on a 7.0 GB file.
=>No file on target (rm the file on the target and rsync) with "rsync -czv"
it took 1 hr.
=>File on target with but header info change on source with "rsync -czv" it
took 40 min
=>File on target with but header info chang
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 14:32 -0500, Linus Hicks wrote:
> At a minimum, when an Oracle database is opened and closed, the timestamps on
> all datafiles will be updated because the header blocks will get updated with
> a
> new SCN. So the timestamps on all datafiles will always look different the
Thanks Matt since morning I am running some real time tests with 7 GB
datafile as you had suggested I should post back the results as soon as that
finishes...and we could find out whether rsync algorithm works as it should.
lsk.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Rsync-help-
Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 11:43 -0800, lsk wrote:
Currently I use "rsync -czv" c for checksum.
If each data file's first few bytes ("header information") change
between rsync transfers, then --checksum buys you nothing. Normally
rsync will skip transferring a file if the
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 11:43 -0800, lsk wrote:
> lsk: This is oracle database the header information(timestamp..etc) on each
> datafile constantly changes which might be very small change but the data
> inside most of the datafiles are same they wont change much. New oracle
> datafiles will be added
Gian,
"What do you mean by "cleanup the datafiles on the target server"? Are
you editing files on the target server? "
lsk: That means I delete/rm the files from the target and then start rsync.
"If the target is not 100% different from the source, yes, keep it!
Rsync will upload the diffe
Hi Isk,
Please see embedded.
Gian
lsk wrote:
Hello,
I was reading your posts about RSYNC. We have a massive Oracle schema lots
of datafiles about 750 GB size. We do rsync datafiles from source to target
server but everytime we cleanup the datafiles on the target server and do
rsync every
37 matches
Mail list logo
