On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:19:54AM -0800, Wayne Davison wrote: > First, thanks for the patch -- they are always appreciated! However, > your patch is identical to the one suggested in this message: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/rsync@lists.samba.org/msg11850.html
i only searched bugzilla. Oh well. > The conversation then went on to mention that --bwlimit has never really > been a daemon option, and only coincidentally set a default bandwidth- > limit value for a daemon (in older versions). However, that value could > be exceeded by the client (which is what your patch re-enables). that behaviour is quite convenient, it allows to set a default which doesn't saturate the net, but still allows a client to get something fast if really needed. > Though > the cited mailing-list thread doesn't mention it, the code in CVS now > has a better --bwlimit option for the daemon that makes this value an > enforced upper-limit on transfers from the daemon. (Nothing tries to > limit transfers into a daemon other than the a user-specified --bwlimit > option.) I'd like to have soft (default) and hard limits for that. Would you accept a patch for that? Not that i expect to do that in january... Regards, Uwe -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
