Thanks! In other words, it would be using --blocking-io anyway, and I want it too use --blocking-io, so the worst the --blocking-io option would be is redundant if the *SERVER* box was compiled with RSYNC_RSH=rsh (which, in my case, it wasn't). The --blocking-io option can't hurt and would be the default if the builds were consistent and should have no side-effects.
This all seems silly, given that on all the boxes the "remsh"s are just links to the "rsh"s, but that's Solaris' silliness, not rsync's. Thanks again, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Dykstra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:28 PM > To: Madole, Dave BGI SF > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: rsync 2.5.5, "unexpected tag failures", Solaris 2.6 vs. > 2.8, "--b locking-io" workaround > > > The problem is in your use of "-e rsh"; --blocking-io is assumed if > the -e value is equal to the RSYNC_RSH define which is usually "remsh" > on solaris but maybe it isn't on solaris 2.8. The > --blocking-io option > is required for most versions of rsh, but it's sometimes difficult for > rsync to know when rsh is being used. It's very confusing, I know. > > - Dave > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:42:19AM -0800, Madole, Dave BGI SF wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have been having a problem that seems related to > previously reported > > problems > > but persists. > > > > I am syncing from a 2.6 Solaris box to a 2.8 solaris box. > All are running > > rsync 2.5.5. > > > > When I sync (commands simplified for example, always using rsh): > > > > 2.8box% rsync -e rsh 2.6box:/path/path/stuff/ /path/path/newstuff/ > > > > i.e., the 2.6 box is the server, I get spurious, persistent > but inconsistent > > "unexpected tag <some number>" failures. This is, > unfortunately, on the 2.8 > > box, the way I have to do it. > > > > When I sync: > > > > 2.6box% rsync -e rsh /path/path/stuff/ 2.8box:/path/path/newstuff/ > > > > (the 2.8box is the server), it works. But the 2.6 box > isn't where the > > script runs. > > > > The first command ALSO works if I use the "--blocking-io" option, > > > > 2.8box%rsync -e rsh 2.6box:/path/path/stuff/ /path/path/newstuff/ > > --blocking-io > > > > but I'm not sure what the possible side-effects of that > might be. (I picked > > up from the CVS archive that there was some kind of > relationship between a > > "socketpair" Solaris bug and the "--blocking-io" option, so > tried it, but > > that seemed many versions ago). > > > > I am not doing the builds myself - sysadmins are doing it. Is there > > anything special they > > need to do in the 2.6 build to avoid my having to use the > "--blocking-io" > > flag? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dave Madole > > -- > > To unsubscribe or change options: > http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync > > Before posting, read: > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
