Re: [tlug] Erratic Rsync Behavior

[Raymond Wan <rwan.kyoto@example.com>]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Charles Muller
<cmuller-lst@example.com> wrote:
> I may have finally hit on one small clue.
>
> I was working at my office machine this evening, wrapping up about
> 21:15 (4/28), at which time I rsynced to the campus server. When I
> got home about an hour later and rsynced down to my home system
> (4/28-22:15), I checked the files that I had most recently saved,
> and they were dated 5:16 am, 4/29 (seen in the bottom two items at
> http://www.acmuller.net/download/dolphin3.png).


Perhaps your server at home is set to JST and the one at the office is
set to US Central Daylight Time?

Is either of your machines dual boot?  Maybe with Windows?  I remember
having an annoying timezone problem before where Linux uses UTC and I
think Windows uses the local time.  So, it sort of mattered whether I
had a Windows system and made that dual boot; or started off with a
Linux system and added Windows to it.  Mattered in the sense that I
just had to be careful.

That was a while ago so I'm not sure if they [though I don't know
whose fault it was...probably Windows :-) ] got it right now.

I'm out on a limb here as you may not even have a dual system, but
maybe you did a Windows update recently?  I'm just guessing of
course...  You did say before that one of the file systems was FAT?


> I guess this means that at the very least I have to double check the
> clock settings on my system at the office next time I go there (but
> probably after GW), but I suppose I still have to check how things
> work in the other direction. But it still doesn't explain why Rsync
> copies every single file half the time.


If you have a timezone problem, then I guess the problem crops up if a
file was modified in the last 16 hours.  For this to be true, that
means that the problem should only occur in one direction -- in the
opposite direction, you would be transferring files "into the future".
 Is that the case?

BTW, I'm not that knowledgeable with Windows' file systems...any
reason why you are using FAT and not NTFS?

Ray