The version of OpenSSH included in 16.04 disables ssh-dss. There's a neat page with legacy information that includes this issue: http://www.openssh.com/legacy.html In a nutshell, you should add the option -oHostKeyAlgorithms=+ssh-dss to the SSH command: ssh -oHostKeyAlgorithms=+ssh-dss root@192.168.8.109

However, if the test file is in fact 0 bytes, then your shell is behaving, but it is possible that you just have a very old version of rsync. You can tell the client end (assuming it is the newer end) to not advertise such a high version that the old rysnc server version doesn't recognize it. You can do this using the --protocol= option. In my case, using --protocol=30 did the trick. If you are still having trouble, try ssh in as the user rsysnc is connecting with and try running rsync --version to see if the shell can find rsync. If you get something that says command not found, then rsync might not be installed on the machine you are connecting to or it might not be in the path. Rsync does have options for specifying the path of the remote end, read the man page(s). ShareShare a link to this answer Copy linkCC BY-SA 3.0 Improve this answer Follow Follow this answer to receive notifications answered Jul 16, 2014 at 20:28 AzendaleAzendale 1,50522 gold badges1111 silver badges1414 bronze badges 2 +1 for the hint about --protocol which solved my problem with a 2.5.6 server (protocol version 26) and a 3.1.0 client (protocol version 31) – MattBianco

If testfile is NOT 0 bytes, then the trouble is that your shell is outputting something. Check /etc/profile, .profile, .bashrc, .cshrc, etc. If it is, you can change it to check if your terminal is interactive and only output text by using the following code in a bashrc. Something equivalent exists for other shells as well: if shopt -q login_shell; then [any code that outputs text here] fi or alternatively, like this, since the special parameter - contains i when the shell is interactive: if echo "$-" | grep i > /dev/null; then [any code that outputs text here] fi

Copying the file data over https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/30970/50703 # via rsync, file by file progress

So it actually replaces the file, not update? If that file is hard-linked, the the other link is unaffected?

I`m getting "rsync warning: some files vanished before they could be transferred (code 24) at main.c(1518) [generator=3.0.9]" on one of my systems i`m backing up with rsync , but rsync doesn`t show WHICH files.

i found that for the osx host "gonzo" , the vanished files (not the warning message itself) appear in stdout - for linux hosts they _both_ appear in stderr , but nothing in stdout (rsync.err.#num is stderr, rsync.log is stdout)

rsync -chavzP --rsync-path="sudo rsync"

It is possible to do a successful file system migration by using rsync as described in this article and updating the fstab and bootloader as described in Migrate installation to new hardware. This essentially provides a way to convert any root file system to another one.

rsync provides a way to do a copy of all data in a file system while preserving as much information as possible, including the file system metadata. It is a procedure of data cloning on a file system level where source and destination file systems do not need to be of the same type. It can be used for backing up, file system migration or data recovery.

I am familiar with using rsync to back up various files from my system but what is the best way to completely restore a machine.

rsnapshot.... it uses rsync for the backup, very good setup

We can also mention lsyncd that is a "live rsync like", making the sync on real time, opening the road for another usage of sync.

The only real trouble with rsync (underlying), is that it can still take considerable time with large file systems and remote systems over slow links. You might want to think about snapshots as well (not just the rsnapshot ones, but file system ones).

If you want to keep several days worth of backups, your storage requirements will grow dramatically with this approach. A tool called rdiff-backup, based on rsync, gets around this issue.

Agreed, I use rdiff-backup because I found my rsync backups were getting cluttered with old files, and sometimes the lack of versioned backups was problematic. I'm a big fan of rdiff-backup. I don't think it actually leverages rsync, as such, but librsync. It's a great tool.

I think that rsync is great but tools like dar, attic, bup, rdiff-backup or obnam are better. I use obnam, as it does "snapshot backups" with deduplication.

Another interesting option, and my personal favorite because it increases the power and flexibility of rsync immensely, is the --link-dest option. The --link-dest option allows a series of daily backups that take up very little additional space for each day and also take very little time to create.

One of the most important features of rsync is the method it uses to synchronize preexisting files that have changed in the source directory. Rather than copying the entire file from the source, it uses checksums to compare blocks of the source and target files. If all of the blocks in the two files are the same, no data is transferred. If the data differs, only the block that has changed on the source is transferred to the target.

While there are so many tools to backup your systems, I find this method super easy and convenient, at least to me. Also, this method is way better than disk cloning with dd command. Because It doesn’t matter if your hard drive is different size, or use different filesystem.

rsync -azvvP /home/path/folder1/ /home/path/folder2