Re: Getting rsync to store timing information in its logs

2010-07-28 Thread Paul Slootman
On Tue 27 Jul 2010, Rahul Nabar wrote: > > The only timing info,. I see is this at the end: > > sent 3067328 bytes received 7853035429 bytes 1187888.83 bytes/sec > Also, the bytes/sec figure has me confused. It seems to convert to > about 1.13 GB/sec. But I know that my ethernet connection is

Re: Getting rsync to store timing information in its logs

2010-07-28 Thread Rahul Nabar
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Paul Slootman wrote: > You're off by 1000. It's 1.19MB/s (1.13MiB/s). > Check your calculator :-) Ok, I'm signing up for math101 again. :) Sorry! -- Rahul -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change opti

--ignore-exisiting criteria?

2010-07-28 Thread fjaccarino
I've been hunting on the web but I can't seem to find what the definition that is used when using the "--ignore-existing" option of RSYNC. Would anyone happen to know what exactly is the criteria used to ignore files? Is it name only? Size? Name and size? Thanks in advance for any help FJ --

Re: --ignore-exisiting criteria?

2010-07-28 Thread Matt McCutchen
On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 10:16 -0700, fjaccarino wrote: > I've been hunting on the web but I can't seem to find what the definition > that is used when using the "--ignore-existing" option of RSYNC. Would > anyone happen to know what exactly is the criteria used to ignore files? Is > it name only?

Re: --ignore-exisiting criteria?

2010-07-28 Thread Frank Jaccarino
Forgive the noob question. When you say at the corresponding path, that would mean name, correct? On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 10:16 -0700, fjaccarino wrote: > > I've been hunting on the web but I can't seem to find what the definition > > that i

Re: --ignore-exisiting criteria?

2010-07-28 Thread Matt McCutchen
On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 22:24 -0700, Frank Jaccarino wrote: > Forgive the noob question. When you say at the corresponding path, that > would mean name, correct? Yes. The same name within the corresponding directory, which has the same name within its parent, and so forth. -- Matt On Wed, Jul 2