> On the whole, I think the time when people should be using rsh is long
> past, and it's about time to add a --with-default-rsh=[ssh] option to
> configure.
This is my idea of the patch. Note that this would make ssh the
default for 2.4.7, unless you specify otherwise at configure or run
time.
> So, one approach is SMUX, in which the author claims to have thought
> through the potential deadlock/memory usage problems Andrew's talking
> about
Better, I think, to look at the IETF's BEEP protocol, primarily done by
Marshall Rose. In particular, the TCP mapping shows you everything you
nee
On 28 Feb 2001, Andrew Tridgell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I don't see is how we could recode this to avoid the zero window
> without losing a lot of the pipelining advantage we have now. Going to
> a more traditional request/response model in rsync would certainly
> make TCP like us but w
(cc'd to Phil Hands as the Debian package maintainer and so presumably
somebody who worries about compatibility/integration issues.)
On 16 Feb 2001, Michael James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >How does everybody (especially Martin and Tridge) feel about the idea of
> >rsync defaulting to "-e ssh"
Martin Pool writes:
> > Will RSYNC compile on VMS. I have a requirement to synchronise data files
> > between a Solaris node and a VMS node.
>
> Did you try it? How did it work out?
>
> It would be cool to add VMS as a supported platform, but I don't think
> any of the current developers have
On 15 Feb 2001, "McKechnie, Grant (Contractor)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good morning all,
>
> Will RSYNC compile on VMS. I have a requirement to synchronise data files
> between a Solaris node and a VMS node.
Did you try it? How did it work out?
It would be cool to add VMS as a supporte
> I'm using Samba to mount some folders from a Windows machine.
Do you mean that the folders are on the windows machine, and you're
using the Linux smbfs filesystem to make the available on Linux?
> I then use rsync to make a copy of the folder. When this runs it
> uses too many resources causin
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 02:57:40PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
>
> Those symptoms are quite different. I suggest checking the server side
> logs first. The EOF occurs on the client side anytime the server side goes
> away prematurely. You probably aren't yet stressing TCP because I don't
> thin
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 03:01:38PM -0500, Scott Russell wrote:
> All -
>
> I understand the focus of the discussion below is Linux <-> Solaris time
> outs but is anyone else seeing the same problem under Linux <-> Linux when
> running 2.4.6 rsync --deamon?
>
> Currently I'm seeing it from the cl
I see the same problem on a linux box running without any network
involved. rsync -av dir1 dir2. (where dir[12] are both on local ide
disks)
I posted a few weeks ago regarding my 2.4.6 hang -- (not running
--deamon)
http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/rsync/2001-January/003552.html.
I found two '
All -
I understand the focus of the discussion below is Linux <-> Solaris time
outs but is anyone else seeing the same problem under Linux <-> Linux when
running 2.4.6 rsync --deamon?
Currently I'm seeing it from the client end. Both of the servers I'm pulling
from were updated to 2.4.6 and then
Re: http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/rsync/2001-February/003628.html
Some more email was exhanged the last couple days on the subject of a TCP
hang between Solaris and Linux:
> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:06:08 -0600
> From:
Hi,
im using rsync to keep a local copy of my webserver logs. So far everything
worked fine, but all of a sudden im seeing the following error:
/usr/local/bin/rsync -vc -e "ssh -c blowfish" \
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/mnt/apachelo/*_access_log ./www/log
write failed on www.some_domain.de_access_log : S
I wanted to let you know there is a new package 'rsynchelper'.
http://rsynchelper.sourceforge.net/
Michael de Beer
from the FAQ:
-
rsynchelper is designed to make it easy for a loose group of mirrors to
quickly and easily setup mirroring time and time again.
rsynchelper makes it ea
14 matches
Mail list logo
