[Bug 11481] New: --ignore-errors must be a separate option

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 11481] New: --ignore-errors must be a separate option

samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11481

            Bug ID: 11481
           Summary: --ignore-errors  must be a separate option
           Product: rsync
           Version: 3.1.2
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P5
         Component: core
          Assignee: [hidden email]
          Reporter: [hidden email]
        QA Contact: [hidden email]

--ignore-errors must be a separate option since we can use this option even
when --delete is not specified. Used to ignore various errors. Man page has to
be updated to indicate the same.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

--
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 11481] --ignore-errors must be a separate option

samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11481

--- Comment #1 from Kevin Korb <[hidden email]> ---
--force exists to force --delete to work even when there are errors.  That is
the only behaviour that rsync changes based on errors.  So what would you
expect --ignore-errors to change when there is no --delete?

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

--
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 11481] --ignore-errors must be a separate option

samba-bugs
In reply to this post by samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11481

--- Comment #2 from Muralidhar N <[hidden email]> ---
Yes. we must have --ignore-errors independent of --delete and also --force
independent of --delete. sometimes we may not use --delete at all and want to
continue with rsync even when errors are there and also sometimes rsync may
refuse to run, so --force.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

--
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 11481] --ignore-errors must be a separate option

samba-bugs
In reply to this post by samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11481

--- Comment #3 from Kevin Korb <[hidden email]> ---
Rsync does continue on errors unless those errors are fatal (like a failure to
connect).  Sounds more like what you want is a retry option which is easy
enough to script.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

--
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 11481] --ignore-errors must be a separate option

samba-bugs
In reply to this post by samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11481

Wayne Davison <[hidden email]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement

--- Comment #4 from Wayne Davison <[hidden email]> ---
I believe you're trying to make an enhancement suggestion to extend what
--ignore-errors does.  If so, what more are you wanting it to do?

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

--
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 11481] --ignore-errors must be a separate option

samba-bugs
In reply to this post by samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11481

--- Comment #5 from [hidden email] ---
@Kevin, your understanding here is incorrect:  rsync bails entire transfers on
things that are NOT fatal to the entire transfer, and --ignore-errors overrides
this.  I ended up stumbling upon this bug as a result of trying to remediate
the behaviour in the case of the following error:

rsync: write failed on "/mnt/PICO3/foo.tbz2": File too large (27)

--ignore-errors does indeed override the fail-through behaviour in this
otherwise non-fatal instance.

(Hint: I'm rsyncing to a vfat filesystem ;), and this file is about 4.5G.  In
addition to the fact that the --ignore-errors documentation clearly needs
revising, this raises two additional, separate bugs pertaining to a) not caring
what errno is, and b) the fact that in the spirit of saving bandwidth we should
use fallocate(2) unless a --skip-[f]allocate switch (e.g. for compressed
destination filesystems) is presented, so we're not transferring data that we
could have predicted would get thrown out... and a third for c) --progress
tells us the wrong thing when the file can no longer be grown, indicating that
the transfer is actually at 100%!)

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

--
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 11481] --ignore-errors must be a separate option

samba-bugs
In reply to this post by samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11481

--- Comment #6 from Paul N <[hidden email]> ---
Slightly correction to my above comment, implying 1-2 more bugs:

- When --ignore-errors is not specified, all subsequent files fail with
'Operation not permitted (1)', which is incorrect, at least at the environment
level (the receiver might be emitting this, but not for any earthly reason as
it were).

- Using --ignore-errors also does The Wrong Thing:  Files after the problematic
file (foo.tbz2 in my above example) are shown by --progress as transferred at
increasingly fast speeds, in this case 150-200MB/sec, and the last couple
approaching twice that... without stracing this these appear to be roughly the
source filesystem read speeds?!

So, --ignore-errors being misdocumented and misimplemented appear to have come
as a pair.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

--
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Bug 11481] --ignore-errors must be a separate option

samba-bugs
In reply to this post by samba-bugs
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11481

--- Comment #7 from Paul N <[hidden email]> ---
(Sorry, more...)

The greatest sin of how --ignore-errors misbehaves in the above case is that
the only error REPORTED at the end of the transfer is the one for the oversized
file that caused the problem... so a bunch of files are shown as transferred by
--progress and yet never were, so perhaps this is --lie-about-errors :)

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

--
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