Re: --delay-updates --temp-dir does it work?

Note that I don't have much experience with these options. My understanding is that --temp-dir doesn't make a tree because it is only designed to hold individual files until rsync is done making them then they aren't temporary anymore and are moved.. --delay-updates on the o

--delay-updates --temp-dir does it work?

Hi all, I can't get this work as man page mention: " --delay-updates put all updated files into place at end --temp-dir=DIR, -T create temporary files in directory DIR " I'm doing whole root update over slow and unstable connection and I understood that those

Re: (--delay-updates and --partial) re-hashing the already downloaded files?

roblem with someone recently in #rsync and IIRC the > solution was to not use --partial-dir > > On 04/17/13 16:40, John Pierman wrote: > > I am backing up a LARGE data set, over a very unstable internet > > connection. > > > > I NEED to --delay-updates, because I d

Re: (--delay-updates and --partial) re-hashing the already downloaded files?

net > connection. > > I NEED to --delay-updates, because I do a flash cut-over once > everything has transferred. Yes I know --copy-dest does this, but > if the connection breaks, anything that's already made it over gets > put into place (not what I want), I need it to go fr

(--delay-updates and --partial) re-hashing the already downloaded files?

I am backing up a LARGE data set, over a very unstable internet connection. I NEED to --delay-updates, because I do a flash cut-over once everything has transferred. Yes I know --copy-dest does this, but if the connection breaks, anything that's already made it over gets put into place

Re: Problem/Bug when syncing subdirectory structures with delay-updates and partial-dir

Am 24.12.2012 20:45, schrieb Wayne Davison: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Hans Korneder > wrote: > > Files are saved within partial-dir, but without the subdirectory > path they came from, so having the same file names within different > subdirectories

Re: Problem/Bug when syncing subdirectory structures with delay-updates and partial-dir

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Hans Korneder wrote: > Files are saved within partial-dir, but without the subdirectory path they > came from, so having the same file names within different subdirectories > causes them to be overwritten (and/or lost, of course). > You should use a relative part

Problem/Bug when syncing subdirectory structures with delay-updates and partial-dir

uot; # create source structure mkdir -p srcdir/sub1 srcdir/sub2 echo "file1" > srcdir/sub1/file1 echo "readme1" > srcdir/sub1/README echo "file2" > srcdir/sub2/file2 echo "readme2" > srcdir/sub2/README # rsync ssh korn@devsys "mkdir -p /jbod1

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6950] delay-updates option generate temporal empty fodlers

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6950 monk...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement --- Comment #2 from

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6950] delay-updates option generate temporal empty fodlers

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6950 --- Comment #1 from m...@mattmccutchen.net 2009-12-04 16:31 CST --- This is not a bug, but maybe it should be an enhancement request. --delay-updates works at the level of individual non-directory files; directory creation is not

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6950] New: delay-updates option generate temporal empty fodlers

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6950 Summary: delay-updates option generate temporal empty fodlers Product: rsync Version: 3.0.6 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 5977] --delay-updates --partial-dir

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5977 m...@mattmccutchen.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 5977] --delay-updates --partial-dir

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5977 --- Comment #1 from m...@mattmccutchen.net 2008-12-19 00:41 CST --- What makes you think this is a bug in rsync? To me it looks more likely to be caused by Windows and/or Cygwin mishandling the special characters in the path. -- Conf

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 5977] New: --delay-updates --partial-dir

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5977 Summary: --delay-updates --partial-dir Product: rsync Version: 3.0.4 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Windows XP Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 5654] Combination of --remove-sent-files, --partial, --partial-dir, --tmp-dir and --delay-updates can cause data loss

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5654 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 5654] New: Combination of --remove-sent-files, --partial, --partial-dir, --tmp-dir and --delay-updates can cause data loss

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5654 Summary: Combination of --remove-sent-files, --partial, -- partial-dir, --tmp-dir and --delay-updates can cause data loss Product: rsync Version: 3.0.3 Platform: x64

Re: Rsync --delay-updates takes a long time

Wayne Davison wrote: On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 08:07:43AM -0700, Eric Horne wrote: It seems that once the transfer is complete, --delay-updates takes a really long time to copy data. The only file movement that --delay-updates supports is renaming -- it never re-copies the files

Re: Rsync --delay-updates takes a long time

On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 08:07:43AM -0700, Eric Horne wrote: > It seems that once the transfer is complete, --delay-updates takes a > really long time to copy data. From strace output, it looks like it is > actually re-reading the data out of the .rsync-partial directory for > each f

Rsync --delay-updates takes a long time

Hi. I'm running rsync 2.6.8 at two sites with --partial/--partial-dir and --delay-updates enabled. It seems that once the transfer is complete, --delay-updates takes a really long time to copy data. From strace output, it looks like it is actually re-reading the data out of the .rsync-pa

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 3304] on --delay-updates remove .~tmp~ recursively

ilter rule: rsync -ai --delay-updates -f 'R .~tmp~/' --delete-after src/ dest/ And rsync will no longer exclude the .~tmp~ dirs from being deleted at the end of the run. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 3304] on --delay-updates remove .~tmp~ recursively

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3304 --- Comment #5 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-01-19 13:15 MST --- Surprise: according to the man page of 2.6.6, a receiving-end protect filter is indeed placed on the partial dir, which is the same as the delay-updates dir. Never mind

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 3304] on --delay-updates remove .~tmp~ recursively

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3304 --- Comment #4 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-01-17 14:56 MST --- Perhaps the special treatment of the .~tmp~ directory could be implemented by placing a receiving-end protect filter on any files inside it. -- Configure bugmail: https://

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 3304] on --delay-updates remove .~tmp~ recursively

he current behaviour can lead to unexpected (and unexplainable) disk-space "loss". At least my (and probably others too) assumption of rsync was, that a "rsync --delete src/ dest/" ensured that the two trees are identical, and --delay-updates silently breaks this assumption.

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 3304] on --delay-updates remove .~tmp~ recursively

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3304 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from [EM

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 3304] on --delay-updates remove .~tmp~ recursively

#1 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-01-16 07:47 MST --- and here an easy reproducible testcase: mirror:/tmp/rsynctest# mkdir src dest mirror:/tmp/rsynctest# echo foo > src/abc mirror:/tmp/rsynctest# rsync -av --delay-updates --delete src/ dest/ building file list ... done ./ abc sent 113 by

[Bug 3304] New: on --delay-updates remove .~tmp~ recursively

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3304 Summary: on --delay-updates remove .~tmp~ recursively Product: rsync Version: 2.6.6 Platform: x64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3

Re: --delay-updates

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:55:49PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: > It is still --delay-updates, or did the option change name (again) ? It's still --delay-updates (ignore my thinko). ..wayne.. -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posti