transfering large
> amount of data and we were asked to upgrade the version. Now we have
> got an option to install rsync 2.6.5.
>
> Can you please let me know if rsync 2.6.5 can handle the large(50 GB)
> amount of data.
I suggest that you go right to the latest stable version
version. Now we have got an
option to install rsync 2.6.5.
Can you please let me know if rsync 2.6.5 can handle the large(50 GB)
amount of data.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Deepak Sharma
Application Consultant
IBM Gurgaon
Ph.+91 9953140845
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid
(changed subject line to help those who come after me)
Thanks heaps Wayne, that solved it.
I've logged a case with Red Hat to have their rsync package updated to
include the fix.
Mike
Mike MacCana | Technical Specialist - Platform Services Engineering |
Institutional Markets & Services | Natio
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:22:39 -0700
Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, the crash turned out to be caused by an empty file-list not getting
> its "high" value set correctly. If such an empty list gets passed to
> flist_find(), it would crash. This is not something that normally
> happe
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 02:05:48PM -0400, Erik Jan Tromp wrote:
> #0 0x08060566 in flist_find ()
> #1 0x0804c6cd in recv_generator ()
OK, the crash turned out to be caused by an empty file-list not getting
its "high" value set correctly. If such an empty list gets passed to
flist_find(), it wou
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:03:07 -0700
Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:14:57AM -0400, Erik Jan Tromp wrote:
> > if I remove every possible option except --fuzzy & --link-dest,
> > segfault every time.
>
> I haven't seen that in my testing. One easy thing to do i
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:14:57AM -0400, Erik Jan Tromp wrote:
> if I remove every possible option except --fuzzy & --link-dest,
> segfault every time.
I haven't seen that in my testing. One easy thing to do is to make sure
that core dumping is enabled and look at a backtrace:
ulimit -c unlimit
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:21:25AM -0400, Erik Jan Tromp wrote:
> If it's a question of which end to change, I would find this option
> being per module much more useful.
Yes, that's indeed more useful, so I just checked in a change to make
the option have a per-module value.
Thanks,
..wayne..
-
Continuing with my backup script (see previous post), I've found a small oops
regarding the 'max verbosity' option for rsyncd.conf
In the manpage this option is listed as a module option. Poking through the
source, however, shows that it's parsed as a global option (loadparm.c).
If it's a quest
I've been reworking my backup script & decided to give some of the newer
options a try. It would appear I've found a combination that doesn't play nice.
$ rsync --archive --delete-during --fuzzy --hard-links --numeric-ids
--quiet --sparse --temp-dir /backup/helium/
--link-dest /backup/hydrogen/
latest man pages are online in their usual spots:
http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/rsync.html
http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/rsyncd.conf.html
And the tar file of the source and its signature are here:
http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/rsync-2.6.5.tar.gz
http://rsync.samba.org
11 matches
Mail list logo
