How dangerous is --inplace

[Philipp Herz - allied internet ag]

Hi,

maybe not quite relevant to your question, but we currently experienced 
an issue using the "--inplace" option with rsync version 3.0.7 affecting 
the "--link-dest" option.

As stated in the man page

--inplace
... Prior to rsync 2.6.4 --inplace was also incompatible with 
--compare-dest  and --link-dest.

"--inplace" should no longer be incompatible with "--link.dest", but it 
actually seems to be...

So if you don't need "--partial", you should better not use "--inplace".

Best regards - Philipp

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
   Philipp Herz
Ihr allied internet Team

-------------------------------

allied internet ag
Am Mittelfelde 29
30519 Hannover
Deutschland

Tel.: +49 (511) 5151 8000     | Fax.: +49 (511) 5151 8299
URL:  www.allied-internet.ag  | E-Mail: info at allied-internet.ag

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hannover, USt-IdNr. DE813460827
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Hannover, Register-Nr.: HRB 202350
Vorstand: Cristoph Bluhm, Sebastian Bluhm, Stefan Priebe
Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. iur. Winfried Huck (Vorsitzender)


Am 16.06.2010 23:16, schrieb A B:
> Hello list!
>
> How dangerous is acctually the --inplace option if you want to run
> rsync to update files that are only  read and not written to? What is
> the worst that can happen? The file is not readable, the reader gets
> half the file of an old version and the rest is from the new version?
>
> There is not a simple way to make it update the file in the standard
> way and then change the ownership afterwards, or is there? Do you have
> to write that program your self?