> On Thu 17 Dec 2009, Joel Peabody wrote: >> >> The meaning of my question is twofold. First, if this is a known issue >> and what I'm seeing is, in fact, what's intended to happen on systems of >> this size. Second, is there any feature, flag, or setting that is >> either >> being overlooked in my rsync command or is otherwise undocumented. Is >> there some sort of switch that can be flicked either in the rsync setup >> or >> my unitilization of it to force it to put out full filenames that is not >> covered in the manpage, or is there and I'm not seeing it? > > All I can say is that: > > --progress is not suitable for logging to a file (or reporting to a > mailinglist) > you use -i (itemize changes) but I see no related output in your > message > > So something in the way you log the output isn't quite right. > > > Paul > -- > Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. > To unsubscribe or change options: > https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync > Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > That's what I thought. I already have 'i' in my flags (-rpti) so I'm kind of at a dead end. I found one other post on the web where someone was having a similar problem. He had 28 million files in his system, and upgrading to 3.0 solved it. I guess that's going to be my ammunition in the battle for getting these systems upgraded. Till then I guess it's going to be some kind of post-transfer job with the ls command.
Thanks, JP -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html