[Bug 10244] link-by-hash patch: speed enhancement by hash calculation on source side

2014-07-25 Thread samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10244 --- Comment #1 from Dave Yost 2014-07-26 01:08:58 UTC --- rsync --link-dest could try a bit harder to find candidates for a hard link. I suggest an option to rsync that works like this when you give it a file size argument: Before copying, on the

[Bug 10244] New: link-by-hash patch: speed enhancement by hash calculation on source side

2013-11-03 Thread samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10244 Summary: link-by-hash patch: speed enhancement by hash calculation on source side Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW

Re: [feature request] Modify --backup option to make backups on source side, too

2007-11-19 Thread Matt McCutchen
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 22:17 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote: > On 10/15/07, Aaron Digulla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is for a production system which goes online Q1 2008. Should I use > > the latest stable version of rsync (2.6.9) or will there be a release of > > 3.0 until then? > > Rsync 3.

Re: [feature request] Modify --backup option to make backups on source side, too

2007-10-15 Thread Matt McCutchen
On 10/15/07, Aaron Digulla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks. I'll try to convince my bosses to see this as "payment" for > using rsync :-) I just hope I can find a simple way to build rsync on > Windows ... I guess I'll try with Cygwin since I already have that > installed and I could build Ghos

Re: [feature request] Modify --backup option to make backups on source side, too

2007-10-15 Thread Aaron Digulla
Matt McCutchen schrieb: > In the same way, I encourage you to test and > begin using the source-backup patch now if it suits your needs; if you > want the patch added to the main version, you can help make that more > likely by improving it. Thanks. I'll try to convince my bosses to see this as "

Re: [feature request] Modify --backup option to make backups on source side, too

2007-10-15 Thread Matt McCutchen
On 10/15/07, Aaron Digulla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the input. If this wasn't for a production system, I'd do > that :-) Why don't you apply the patch the release version? Because the patch is a quick hack to serve a niche need, so the benefit of saving people who need source backup

Fwd: Re: [feature request] Modify --backup option to make backups on source side, too

2007-10-15 Thread Aaron Digulla
- Weitergeleitete Nachricht von [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Datum: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:05:13 +0200 Von: Aaron Digulla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Antwort an: Aaron Digulla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Betreff: Re: [feature request] Modify --backup option to make backups on sour

Re: [feature request] Modify --backup option to make backups on source side, too

2007-10-15 Thread Matt McCutchen
On 10/15/07, Aaron Digulla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you please modify the backup options to work together with > --remove-source-files so I'm able to create a reliable "move between > hosts" script? The patch "patches/source-backup.diff" in the source tree adds an option --source-backup to

[feature request] Modify --backup option to make backups on source side, too

2007-10-15 Thread Aaron Digulla
Hello, Can you please modify the backup options to work together with --remove-source-files so I'm able to create a reliable "move between hosts" script? If --backup is specified, the files to be deleted should be renamed on the source side. If --backup-dir is specified,

Re: source side

2005-06-11 Thread Juergen Busam
John Van Essen wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Juergen Busam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Yes, the source side is a CIFS share on a NetApp filer and YES, they >>change everytime I run rsync and they go back another hour. >>no, they do NOT restore to their &q

Re: source side

2005-06-11 Thread John Van Essen
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Juergen Busam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, the source side is a CIFS share on a NetApp filer and YES, they > change everytime I run rsync and they go back another hour. > no, they do NOT restore to their "normal" unchanged values, after > u

Re: source side

2005-06-11 Thread Juergen Busam
Yes, the source side is a CIFS share on a NetApp filer and YES, they change everytime I run rsync and they go back another hour. no, they do NOT restore to their "normal" unchanged values, after unmounting and mounting again... they shouldn't change at all, because rsync shouldn&#

Re: source side

2005-06-11 Thread John Van Essen
a "ls -altr" on the source before syncing and after it and it > definitely shows that the timestamps of the source side changed after > rsync has finished. The destination side gets the timestamps of the > source side before the sync. > > Example: > > bevor sync:

Re: source side

2005-06-10 Thread Juergen Busam
I've ran a "ls -altr" on the source before syncing and after it and it definitely shows that the timestamps of the source side changed after rsync has finished. The destination side gets the timestamps of the source side before the sync. Example: bevor sync: -rwxr-xr-x

Re: source side

2005-06-10 Thread Wayne Davison
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 09:27:42AM +1000, Juergen Busam wrote: > I still have my formerly mentioned timestamp problem. IS rsync changing > the timestamps on the sourceside? No, rsync doesn't do anything on the source-side except read things (unless --remove-sent-files is specified, in

source side

2005-06-09 Thread Juergen Busam
Can anyone tell me what rsync is doing on the sourceside, if I rsync one local directory to another local directory, with the parameters -av --delete-after ? I still have my formerly mentioned timestamp problem. IS rsync changing the timestamps on the sourceside? Thanks Juergen -- To unsubscribe