Rsync shortcutting output?

[Joel Peabody]

> On Thu 17 Dec 2009, Joel Peabody wrote:
>>
>> PS, this is between two Redhat machines using rsync 2.6.8 on both ends.
>> Upgrading rsync is not an option in this case.
>
> What I always wonder when reading such messages, is what type of
> response is expected, if a problem with the tool is suspected but
> upgrading "is not an option"? (Why not?)  That we travel back in time
> to fix the tool before the person in question installs it? :-)
>

Yes, if you could get on that immediately, I bet there would be multiple
applications for such technology. ;)

The reason I included that tidbit is because a) I knew it would be asked
and b) I knew that upgrading is far and away the most common piece of
advice given on lists like these.  The 'why' is a combination of
bureaucracy and technology, and something that I, as a temp worker, cannot
overcome at this time.

The meaning of my question is twofold.  First, if this is a known issue
and what I'm seeing is, in fact, what's intended to happen on systems of
this size.  Second, is there any feature, flag, or setting that is either
being overlooked in my rsync command or is otherwise undocumented.  Is
there some sort of switch that can be flicked either in the rsync setup or
my unitilization of it to force it to put out full filenames that is not
covered in the manpage, or is there and I'm not seeing it?

If the answer to these questions are 'yes' for 1 and 'no' for 2, fine, I
can continue to look at workaround options.  But if there is a working
solution to this quandary I'm eager to read it.