Re: send_files failed to open filename ...

2003-01-24 Thread jw schultz
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 12:48:20PM -0500, Green, Paul wrote: > Do-Risika RAFIEFERANTSIARONJY wrote: > > but I don't really understand this last part, especially the *double > > buffering* ? > > I think JW means that you should first make a local copy of the directory > hierarchy you want to back

RE: send_files failed to open filename ...

2003-01-24 Thread Green, Paul
Do-Risika RAFIEFERANTSIARONJY wrote: > but I don't really understand this last part, especially the *double > buffering* ? I think JW means that you should first make a local copy of the directory hierarchy you want to back up to another system, and then run rsync on the copy. If you use differe

Re: send_files failed to open filename ...

2003-01-23 Thread Do-Risika RAFIEFERANTSIARONJY
jw schultz wrote: * is these messages harmful or not ? Not harmful. It is an indication of the volatility of the source at the time of transfer. Having some files disappear could result in an inconsistant state. For example: a web repository where the delete happens between index.html and g

Re: send_files failed to open filename ...

2003-01-23 Thread jw schultz
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 03:38:34PM +0300, Do-Risika RAFIEFERANTSIARONJY wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > I'm mirroring some websites with rsync (daemon on the source), and I > noticed in the destination host some error messages 'send_files failed > to open filenames', > > Actually, the concerned f

send_files failed to open filename ...

2003-01-23 Thread Do-Risika RAFIEFERANTSIARONJY
Hi everybody, I'm mirroring some websites with rsync (daemon on the source), and I noticed in the destination host some error messages 'send_files failed to open filenames', Actually, the concerned files are deleted on the source host, but I would like to ask : * why does rsync say these (in