Rsync shortcutting output?
jpeabody at bnserve.com
Fri Dec 18 08:12:35 MST 2009
> On Thu 17 Dec 2009, Joel Peabody wrote:
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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?
> All I can say is that:
> --progress is not suitable for logging to a file (or reporting to a
> you use -i (itemize changes) but I see no related output in your
> So something in the way you log the output isn't quite right.
> Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
> To unsubscribe or change options:
> Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
That's what I thought. I already have 'i' in my flags (-rpti) so I'm kind
of at a dead end. I found one other post on the web where someone was
having a similar problem. He had 28 million files in his system, and
upgrading to 3.0 solved it. I guess that's going to be my ammunition in
the battle for getting these systems upgraded. Till then I guess it's
going to be some kind of post-transfer job with the ls command.
More information about the rsync