c.shoemaker at cox.net
Wed Jun 16 16:30:04 GMT 2004
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:34:46PM +0100, Andrew Smith-MAGAZINES wrote:
> My personal preference was to mount a share from the file server on the client and essentially do the sync all locally on the client but rsync doesn't seem to like doing this very much (apparently this is advised against),
> What doesn't rsync like? Do you mean something like a rsync between a
> local mount and a locally-mounted NFS export? That should be fine.
> Hi Chris, yes this is exactly what I mean. When I tested this it threw up lots of errors.
> A collegue of mine asked the question of MIT who developed the rsyncx version and they said:
> #This problem has been noted. The rsync developers recommend only local
> #mounts for rsyncs, or using the rsync network transports (or ssh) for
> #remote rsyncs. As of v1.7d, ssh is the fastest form of rsync to perform.
Hmm, I'm completely unaware of that recommendation. Do any "rsync
developers" care to confirm/deny? Perhaps it's an obsolete
recommendation. I've used rsync over NFS with no problems.
> If you think it should work ok, then I'll test it again,
Please report success or failure, esp. failure.
> thanks for your comments, Andy.
> To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
> Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
More information about the rsync