Wayne,
Frank Fegert wrote:
> Wayne,
>
> thanks for your prompt response!
>
> [self-inflicted pain snipped]
thanks for your help, but never mind! As usual, the problem
was sitting in front of the keyboard, between the headphones
;-)
For security reasons i use a wrapper script on the sending
machin
Wayne,
thanks for your prompt response!
Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Frank Fegert wrote:
>
>>i'm having a rather strange problem with rsync (v2.6.8). Rsync is run to
>>synchronize
>>two identical, rather old Solaris 2.6 servers.
>
> I have heard of some prob
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Frank Fegert wrote:
> i'm having a rather strange problem with rsync (v2.6.8). Rsync is run to
> synchronize
> two identical, rather old Solaris 2.6 servers.
I have heard of some problems with some Solaris versions of ssh, so it
may help to install openss
Hi all,
i'm having a rather strange problem with rsync (v2.6.8). Rsync is run to
synchronize
two identical, rather old Solaris 2.6 servers. All filesystems rsync fine
except for one.
Rsync bails out on this particular FS with the following messages:
# /var/tmp/bin/rsync -avz -e "ssh -i $keyfile
Hi,
I am trying to sync a staff directory NFS mounted on a Linux server which is
around 60 GB total size and syncing to another remote Linux server. Rsync
version is 2.6.2 on both machines. When I ran rsync for the first time, it
appeared to build the entire list within 5 minutes and after syncing
> "Dave" == Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:42:31PM -0700, Wayne Davison
Dave> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
>> > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge
>> > memory footprint when large
At 08:37 PM 5/20/02, you wrote:
>Doing so requires an upfront scan of the entire destination tree, and
>for the client to hold all this information in memory.
[I accidently sent this to Martin instead of the list...]
I wonder if it would be useful to have a partner program that would index
the r
On 21 May 2002, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do shudder when I read about Martin's plans for a complete redesign
> because I have a lot of doubts about how it will affect performance. The
> only reason that Rsync is as popular as it is today is because of its
> performance, and if
21,25451,25970),
".\n" '
"There are some who call me Tim?"
Lenny Foner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
05/17/2002 02:10 PM
To: Tim Conway/LMT/SC/PHILIPS@AMEC
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Rsync dies
Classification:
D
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:42:31PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
> > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> > footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> > the list of things to fix.
>
> I have cert
On 20 May 2002, Phil Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:42:31PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
>
> | On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
> | > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> | > footprint when large numbers of files are involv
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:42:31PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
| On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
| > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
| > footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
| > the list of things to fix.
|
| I have cer
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 10:58:33PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
| On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 09:35:04PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
| > On 17 May 2002, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
| [...]
| > I've been thinking about this too. I think the
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 09:35:04PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 17 May 2002, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
[...]
> I've been thinking about this too. I think the top-level question is
>
> Start from scratch with a new protocol, or try
On 17 May 2002, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
> > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> > footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> > the list of things to fix.
>
> I have certainly
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:42:31PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
> > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> > footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> > the list of things to fix.
>
> I have cert
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Wayne Davison wrote:
> so feel free to tell me exactly where I've missed the boat.
[Replying to myself... hmmm...]
In my description of the _new_ protocol, my references to a generator
process are not really accurate. The current generator process is
forked off after the i
OTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/17/2002 02:42 PM
To: rsync users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: (bcc: Tim Conway/LMT/SC/PHILIPS)
Subject:Improving the rsync protocol (RE: Rsync dies)
Classification:
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrot
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
> In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> the list of things to fix.
I have certainly been interested in working on this issue. I think it
might be time t
> In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> the list of things to fix.
I think many would agree. If it were trivial, it'd probably be
done by now.
Fix #1 (what most people do):
Split the fi
Allen, John L. wrote:
> In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> the list of things to fix. It seems that every fifth post is a
> complaint about this problem! Sorry if this sounds like ungrateful
>
]
Subject: Re: Rsync dies
Yeah. You'll have to find a way to break the job up into smaller pieces.
It's a pain, but I have a similar situation - 3M+ files in 130+Gb. I
can't get the whole thing in one chunk, no matter how fast a server with
however much memory, even on Gb et
PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/17/2002 02:08 AM
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: (bcc: Tim Conway/LMT/SC/PHILIPS)
Subject:Rsync dies
Classification:
I´m trying to rsync a 210 GB Filesystem with approx 1.500.000 Files.
Rsync always dies afte
I´m trying to rsync a 210 GB Filesystem with approx 1.500.000 Files.
Rsync always dies after about 29 GB without any error messages.
I´m Using rsync version 2.5.5 protocol version 26.
Has anyone an idea ?
Thank´s Clemens
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/l
24 matches
Mail list logo
