On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 01:27 -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote: > On Sun, 2007-12-23 at 15:55 -0500, Ming Zhang wrote: > > if sender read by path again and get ENOENT, then this ENOENT can tell > > rsync enough info. (though current rsync might say partial transfer > > though it is a vanished file... ) > > Treating the file as completely vanished on the basis of the ENOENT and > discarding the fd would be another "correct" behavior, but I agree that > operating on the fd is cleaner. I believe the current rsync does give > partial transfer, which is not ideal.
so one way or the other, just stick to either one is fine. since the exit code sometime is a personal taste... > > > all file sync/backup software for a live file system can have same > > issue > > here. which state to maintain. rsync can always do a stat on the saved > > path again after the transfer, to detect the change, and then (with an > > option specified), put the path into a residual file list and > > reprocess > > them again. but maybe rsync does no need to go this far and a higher > > layer software base on rsync can do this... > > Yes, such as the inotify+rsync setup you mentioned. > > > Thanks a lot for all the explanation and wish you a happy holiday! > > Thanks! My holiday has been very happy so far! cool, enjoy. thanks for the great rsync stuff which make our life easier and can be happy too at this moment! > > Matt > -- Ming Zhang @#$%^ purging memory... (*!% http://blackmagic02881.wordpress.com/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/blackmagic02881 -------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html