https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4957
Summary: rsync with acl patch crashes with fuzzy option
Product: rsync
Version: 2.6.9
Platform: x64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
On 9/6/07, Drift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a proxy server and wanted to know how to get rsync to work through
> the proxy.
Perhaps set the RSYNC_PROXY environment variable to the proxy's
hostname:port , as described in the man page?
Matt
--
To unsubscribe or change options: https://li
Hi, all
I am having issues trying to rsync to a blastwave mirror on my Solaris 10
server. Here's the error:
-bash-3.00# rsync rsync://www.ibiblio.org/sun-packages/csw
rsync: failed to connect to www.ibiblio.org: Connection timed out (145)
rsync error: error in socket IO (code 10) at clientserve
Problem:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-04/msg00792.html
Explained:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-04/msg00835.html
This is the exact same problem that I'm experiencing, but couldn't find a fix
for it... Anyone?
To: rsync@lists.samba.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 10:16:44 AM
Subject
On 9/3/07, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm hoping that it won't be all that much longer before the first
> pre-release version will be ready. I mainly want to get hard-link
> support working in incremental recursion mode (which is getting pretty
> close in my local copy), and to fix
On 9/5/07, Jonathan Hurd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok well I tried setting the bwlimit, wasnt sure what to set it to. Tried
> high 800's down to 50kb\s. No Luck.
The problem could be that the current bandwidth-limiting algorithm
doesn't prevent rsync from issuing two big writes in rapid success
On 9/4/07, jrradtke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am using Rsync to backup 4 Linux/Samba servers to a Netware 6.5 server over
> a VPN. Also using cyRsync to backup XP computers to the same Netware 6.5
> server ovre a LAN.
> Rsync is run from a cron job on the Linux servers and the actual process
>
On 9/6/07, Peter, Theresa M Ms CONT USAAC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We had just been running with WAS since April and never
> had a problem prior to this. As far as the network group is concerned they
> made no changes or upgrades to WAS. So it just seemed odd that out of the
> blue we started
