For an rsyncd client, the "rsync $host::" suggestion seems like an
excellent idea. Its exit status appears to be correct (0 on success), and
as you point out it is confirming the desired service is actually available.
Craig
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 6:07 PM Kenneth Porter
wrote:
> On 8/10/2019 9
On 8/10/2019 9:50 AM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
IMHO the only reason why one might want to replace the ping command is
hosts that don't reply to pings for security reasons
I'm thinking that "rsync $host::" would be a good substitute for an
rsyncd backup because it preloads the executable on the c
On 09.08.19 07:08, Michael Huntley wrote:
> It’s simply to check if the host is answering.
Yup.
> I use ‘echo’
IIUC, you use a command that always returns true (coincidentally, the
canonical choice for that command is `true`... ;-))?
This means that
(1) blackouts won't work as expected (note th
It’s simply to check if the host is answering.
I use ‘echo’
Cheers,
mph
> On Aug 8, 2019, at 10:05 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
>
> Why does BackupPC ping the host to be backed up before starting its backup.
> (I'm using rsyncd.) I'm thinking of replacing the ping command with "rsync
> $host::
Why does BackupPC ping the host to be backed up before starting its backup.
(I'm using rsyncd.) I'm thinking of replacing the ping command with "rsync
$host::". Is there any downside to that?
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sour
