Changing only file permissions
hvjunk at gmail.com
Wed Apr 22 04:39:16 MDT 2015
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Kevin Korb <kmk at sanitarium.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> No, even if bandwidth is your concern I would say that --checksum is
> wrong. Maybe if bandwidth is so scarse that a few KB vs a few MB
> equates to dollars then sure, use --checksum.
Yes, it does for me. This is especially when I update files whose size
stays the same, and 'cause of the way transfers happened/failed, the
destination time is later/equal to the source, then I needed to have
the transfers forced, else rsync skipped over some.
> Otherwise, letting
> rsync re-delta-xfer everything is certainly faster and not much more
> bandwidth intensive than --checksum. Plus that is only if you screwed
> up and ran rsync wrongly in the past. This question shouldn't matter
> as you should have synchronized mtime stamps so that rsync knows what
> is going on.
> In my experience, --checksum is really only useful with
> - --only-write-batch, or with --link-dest and known corruption, or with
> - --itemize-changes and a watch for hardware induced corruption.
> If --checksum didn't checksum absolutely everything on both ends it
> might be more useful. But apparently the use cases for --checksum are
> so rare that nobody seems to care that --checksum is so stupid that it
> checksums files that have different file sizes (and therefore could
> only have a matching checksum if one file is a carefully crafted hash
> collision) and it even checksums file that only exist on one (or the
> other) end of the connection even though there is no file on the other
> end to compare the checksum to. What a waste of time.
> On 04/22/2015 03:57 AM, Hendrik Visage wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Kevin Korb <kmk at sanitarium.net>
>> wrote: Normally, I would say that --checksum is actually slower
>> than just letting rsync re-copy everything
>>> Depends on the network capacity and costs associated with that
>>> bandwidth :(
>> and therefore is almost always the wrong thing to do.
>>> Nope, not when you are bandwidth and budget constraint ;)
>> However, in this case, you really don't want to overwrite the
>> running OS even with files that are essentially the same. So, if
>> the system is running from that storage then --checksum might
>> actually be useful.
>> On 04/22/2015 01:59 AM, Hendrik Visage wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:03 AM, James Moe
>>>>> <jimoe at sohnen-moe.com> wrote: Hello, opensuse 13.2 linux
>>>>> v3.16.7-7-desktop x86_64 rsync v3.1.1
>>>>> I used rsync to copy /usr/ to another volume with these
>>>>> options: --recursive --one-file-system --links --stats
>>>>> --itemize-changes --quiet --delete --times After I had
>>>>> modified the system to use the new /usr volume, I realized I
>>>>> should have added: --perms --owner --group --executability
>>>>> So the target volume has everything set as "root root", and
>>>>> useful bits like the SetUID mode are missing.
>>>>> Is there a way to use rsync to restore only the
>>>>> permissions/owner/user and mode flags on the target volume
>>>>> from the source volume?
>>>>>> *If* their sizes and times match, then I believe rsync does
>>>>>> only the permissions/etc. changes with the -a option.
>>>>>> However, I got into the tendency when doing these type of
>>>>>> things, to use the -c/--checksum option, that way rsync
>>>>>> makes sure the files haven't changed and will
>>>>>> -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting
>>>>>> the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options:
>>>>>> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before
>>>>>> posting, read:
>>> -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the
>>> mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options:
>>> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting,
>>> read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> - --
> Kevin Korb Phone: (407) 252-6853
> Systems Administrator Internet:
> FutureQuest, Inc. Kevin at FutureQuest.net (work)
> Orlando, Florida kmk at sanitarium.net (personal)
> Web page: http://www.sanitarium.net/
> PGP public key available on web site.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rsync