On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 12:09 +, Mark Young wrote:
I believe the rdiff man page is still not correct, even with your
submitted changes. It states In every case where a filename must be
specified, - may be used instead to mean either standard input or
standard output as appropriate
Hi Matt,
I believe the rdiff man page is still not correct, even with your submitted
changes. It states In every case where a filename must be specified, - may be
used instead to mean either standard input or standard output as appropriate..
I've not found that to be the case. For instance:
Thanks very much Matt for the rdiff command examples and for filing a request
to improve the documentation.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options:
Thanks very much Eliot and Matt. I didn't know about gzip storing the original
filename, thanks for the tip about the -n. As you say from rsync's point of
view I'm sure the difference is negligible.
Can you point me at any usage examples with rdiff. I've searched quite a bit
and apart from
Hi,
I am hoping that rsync may be able to improve an existing network backup I've
got:
tar czf - --files-from $FILE_LIST | ssh -i $AUTH -l $USER $HOST cat
${DEST}/${SOURCE}_${FILE}.tgz
You can see that this backup uses tar to create a single compressed archive and
store it on a remote host
Hi Ryan Matt,
Thank you both for your replies. I'll reply to you both in one go, starting
with you Ryan.
The decision to have tarballs on the remote site is arguably unnecessary. It's
like that historically, and does cope with a very large hierachy of small
files. There are many different
: RE: rsync of STDIN to a file.
From: m...@mattmccutchen.net
To: mark_yo...@hotmail.com
CC: rsync@lists.samba.org
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:53:30 -0500
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 16:28 +, Mark Young wrote:
I tried an experiment to see how rsync coped with the tar compressed
files versus
