Please ignore this thread for the moment.
At present, there are no complete copies of the file in question at the
destination.
I was sure yesterday, but OTOH I can't imagine why existing copies would
have been deleted. It's not supposed to work that way.
I've been monitoring the situation in sc
Wayne Davison wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 01:36:14PM +0800, John wrote:
Is there something in the above options I should add or remove?
I don't see anything wrong that should prevent the hard-linking from
happening. If you do an "ls -li" on the source files, do they all show
the same in
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 01:36:14PM +0800, John wrote:
> Is there something in the above options I should add or remove?
I don't see anything wrong that should prevent the hard-linking from
happening. If you do an "ls -li" on the source files, do they all show
the same inode number? I'll run some
For those who saw my earlier posts regarding reliability and robustness,
there were several problems;
1. rsync does not retry when there are transmission errors such as
timeouts. I suggest it ought (as wget does): doing so would have enabled
a clean recovery from the network problems we had.
2.
