On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 12:17:05PM +1200, Richard Hector wrote: > On 13/09/21 7:04 pm, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:45:02AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote: > >>On 12/09/21 6:52 pm, john doe wrote: > > > >[...] > > > >>>If you are doing this in a script, I would use a temporary directory. > >>>That way, in case of failure the destination directory is not rongly > >>>modified. > >>> > >>>EG: > >>> > >>>$ rsync <src-dir> <tmp-dir> > >>> > >>>Make <tmp-dir> the way you want it to be. > >>> > >>>$ rsync <tmp-dir> <dest-dir> > >> > >>That is true, but firstly it would require more available space [...] > > > >This isn't necessary, as you could replace the second `rsync' by a `mv' > >(provided your temp tree is on the same storage volume as your target > >dir, that is). > > I was assuming the suggestion was to rsync the source to the temp > while the destination still exists, before rsyncing or mv'ing over > the top of it. Total of 3 copies (temporarily) rather than 2. Then, it's different. But in your scenario you would probably want to take down whatever "service" relies on the destination dir while the copy is in progress. In any case, if you haven't the space, you haven't it. Sysadmin's life ain't always nice :) Cheers - t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature