[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Rsync -- Different Outputs on No Transfer

This is just a shot in the dark, but, ...

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Hal Vaughan <hal@halblog.com> wrote:
> I'm using rsync on "normal" Debian (6.x), on two embedded systems that run what look like Debian variations (DNS-321 by D-Link and Stora by Netgear) and on OS X.

Mac OS-X? hmm. May be a red herring, maybe not.

> On Debian, whenever I run rsync (rsync --delete -rlptv -e ssh /my/path/ myname@mybackup:Backup/, if there are no files to transfer, rsync prints a long list of directories and I get a high enough count for the bytes transferred that it's well over just the text of the list of directories.  With other systems, I often get something more like this (from the same command with the same flags):
> [admin@server:~]$ rsync --delete -rlptv -e ssh /ServerShare/data/ myname@backup:Backup/data/
> Stora version 10.0.x
> building file list ... done
> sent 415903 bytes  received 20 bytes  12797.63 bytes/sec
> total size is 5840010926  speedup is 14041.09
> I understand the "Stora version 10.0.x" is from the Stora when I essentially log in via ssh for this backup.  I also notice this transfers over 400k bytes with no data sent to the backup system.  Is that all checksums and filenames?
> All these backups are going to the same system, so the difference in whether I get a simple output or a long listing of directories scanned for backup files would seem to be due to something on the sending system.
> I use the -v flag whenever in case I need to debug later.
> Any idea why, on Debian, I always get a long directory listing and don't get it on some other systems?
> It's not a "must fix" but when I'm scanning output files, obviously it's a LOT easier to verify everything went smoothly if I get a quick and simple output than if I have to scan a long list of directories.
> It'd be nice to simplify it so I can tell at a glance when things went well.  Any suggestions on what could cause the difference?

It may, as has been suggested, be date churn.

File forks aren't used much by modern software, but the current Mac OS
still supports resource forks. This entry on wikipedia may be of
interest: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_fork>.

Joel Rees

Reply to: