On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 12:03:28PM +1000, Christopher Vance wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:54:02PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> >It isn't yet. The debian version of gzip might have the
> >patch applied because it is an issue for the debian mirror
> >sites but i don't know. I believe the gzip d
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:54:02PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
It isn't yet. The debian version of gzip might have the
patch applied because it is an issue for the debian mirror
sites but i don't know. I believe the gzip developers are
considering applying the patch.
Oh. That makes it mostly not-ye
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:31:36AM +1000, Christopher Vance wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:20:48PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> >>It will never help with rsync-2.5.6.tar.gz vs. rsync-2.5.5.tar.gz
> >>anyway, since any small change early in the stream will cause the entire
> >>file to be encoded
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:20:48PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
It will never help with rsync-2.5.6.tar.gz vs. rsync-2.5.5.tar.gz
anyway, since any small change early in the stream will cause the entire
file to be encoded differently (side affect of how compression
algorithms work).
See the rsyncable p
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 13:00, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> jw schultz wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 12:38:40AM -0400, John E. Malmberg wrote:
[...]
> > I do not know but if OpenVMS support is a problem for rsync
> > proper you might wish to look at pysync or unison which
> > might meet your immedi
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:41:56PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:54:20PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > Having looked at that bit of code now. I am a bit concerned about the
> > use of shift operators on signed integers here.
>
> I don't see the problem with regard to thi
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 13:00, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> jw schultz wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 12:38:40AM -0400, John E. Malmberg wrote:
[...]
> > I do not know but if OpenVMS support is a problem for rsync
> > proper you might wish to look at pysync or unison which
> > might meet your immedi
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:54:20PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> Having looked at that bit of code now. I am a bit concerned about the
> use of shift operators on signed integers here.
I don't see the problem with regard to this code because we're only
looking at bits that where known to exist in th
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:43:45PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 07:29:24PM -0400, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> > Or should there be parenthesis around (n >> 8) to make sure that it
> > happens before the most significant part of "n" is discarded?
>
> Yes, there should be pare
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 07:29:24PM -0400, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> Or should there be parenthesis around (n >> 8) to make sure that it
> happens before the most significant part of "n" is discarded?
Yes, there should be parens there. Note that this bug only affects
batch mode (a fairly rare opti
[A repost under a new topic since the other seems to have been lost in
the noise]
I am basically down to one unresolved compilier diagnostic.
The HP/COMPAQ/DEC C compiler is concerned about this line in TOKEN.C
4 22136 temp_byte = (char) n >> 8;
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:30:32PM -0700, Ben Escoto wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:43:35 -0400
> "Jason M. Felice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dirvish looks interesting. One of the requirements that I now realize I
> > didn't write into the proposal was the ability to store only a single
> >
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:43:35 -0400
"Jason M. Felice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dirvish looks interesting. One of the requirements that I now realize I
> didn't write into the proposal was the ability to store only a single
> copy of duplicate files... duplicate as determined by file contents, n
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:57:37PM -0400, Jason M. Felice wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:18:00PM +0100, Andy Henson wrote:
> > I propose a new option:
> > --comp-file=
> >
> > allowing:
> > rsync -vvtPB --comp-file=$BASE remote.host:$NEW .
> >
>
> Specifying this for each file would be murd
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:43:35PM -0400, Jason M. Felice wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:44:52AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > Try dirvish or one of the other backup systems already out
> > there.
>
> dirvish looks interesting. One of the requirements that I now realize I
> didn't write into
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:18:00PM +0100, Andy Henson wrote:
> I propose a new option:
> --comp-file=
>
> allowing:
> rsync -vvtPB --comp-file=$BASE remote.host:$NEW .
>
Specifying this for each file would be murder for my purposes, but I
like the concept. I think there needs to be some sort of
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:44:52AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> Try dirvish or one of the other backup systems already out
> there.
dirvish looks interesting. One of the requirements that I now realize I
didn't write into the proposal was the ability to store only a single
copy of duplicate files..
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:57:36AM -0400, Jason M. Felice wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Below is a link to a proposal I'm writing for two clients of ours who want an
> Internet-based backup solution. I propose eleven "objectives" in it,
> most of which are modifications to rsync. I'd like to contribute
> the
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:34:00PM +0100, Andy Henson wrote:
> Rsync maps files into memory, so it cannot handle files larger than the
> program's address space. On 32 bit machines this is likely to be less
> than 2GB.
>
> You don't say what processor you are running on? Can it map files of
>
I agree version support should be added to rsync, indeed I was about to
propose an extension, but I start from a very different point of view.
We already use versioned files. For example, the rsync download is called
rsync-2.5.6.tar.gz and the previous one is rsync-2.5.5.tar.gz.
I agree some s
Hi!
Below is a link to a proposal I'm writing for two clients of ours who want an
Internet-based backup solution. I propose eleven "objectives" in it,
most of which are modifications to rsync. I'd like to contribute
these changes back where possible, and so I'm posting this here for review.
The
Rsync maps files into memory, so it cannot handle files larger than the
program's address space. On 32 bit machines this is likely to be less
than 2GB.
You don't say what processor you are running on? Can it map files of
bigger than 2GB into memory?
Andy Henson
--
To unsubscribe or change o
Hi..
I m using rsync on AIX 4.3 for backing up a huge database. Rsync gives error on
bringing files greater than 2 GB. I tried the 64 bit version of Rsync 2.5.6 (on 64bit
file system) also, but it didnt worked.
Please advice...
Thanks in Advance
Nitin Agarwal
--
To unsubscribe or change optio
Yes, that was it. I'd forgotten that /usr was a separately mounted FS.
Thank you.
-- Marco
John Van Essen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Marco Nicosia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Hello. I'm having a problem using rsync to copy my root partition to a
> >new disk. This di
24 matches
Mail list logo
