At 10:27 15.12.2009 +0100, Fabian Cenedese wrote: >Hi > >I already wrote about this problem half a year ago but didn't get >an answer: http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2009-June/023412.html > >I'm using rsync 3.0.3 on a NAS. In the parameter list I use --timeout=1800. >But still I often have rsync stall much longer than that. > >2009/12/14 23:14:35 [8707] io timeout after 11670 seconds -- exiting >2009/12/14 23:14:35 [8707] rsync error: timeout in data send/receive (code 30) >at io.c(239) [sender=3.0.3pre1] > >2009/12/14 00:20:04 [19046] io timeout after 15485 seconds -- exiting >2009/12/14 00:20:04 [19046] rsync error: timeout in data send/receive (code >30) at io.c(239) [sender=3.0.3pre1] > >However, why is it that rsync waits much longer than given in --timeout? >Shouldn't timeout work that way?
I think I know now where my confusion comes from. The reported time is not the actual time without action but the time since the start of the rsync command. 2009/12/15 20:00:02 [4260] building file list 2009/12/15 20:00:03 [4260] .d..t...... vmware/FTPServer2/ 2009/12/15 20:23:45 [4260] <f.st...... vmware/FTPServer2/FTPServer2-s017.vmdk 2009/12/15 22:12:25 [4260] <f+++++++++ vmware/FTPServer2/FTPServer2-s018.vmdk 2009/12/15 23:10:19 [4260] io timeout after 11372 seconds -- exiting 2009/12/15 23:10:19 [4260] rsync error: timeout in data send/receive (code 30) at io.c(239) [sender=3.0.3pre1] 11372 seconds is 189.something minutes, so 20:00+3h09 makes about the 23:10 timeout time. Same seems to be true for my previous examples, all started at 20:00. So --timeout does seem to be honoured, just the reported timeout time is a bit misleading. If this is not to be changed maybe an explaining comment in the docs might be a good idea. Thanks bye Fabi -- 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
