Max Bowsher wrote:
jw schultz wrote:
I'd rather we default modify-window to 1 for windows.
It's not like the mailing list (rsync or cygwin) is flooded with messages
complaining about this.
Using a normal modify-window of 0 and a big WARNING in man and readme
(and in my cygwin package a
jw schultz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:44:58PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> jw schultz wrote:
>>> I'd rather we default modify-window to 1 for windows.
>>
>> But windows != FAT. Even a Linux system *could* be using FAT. What's
>> wrong with the current state of affairs?
>> It's not like th
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:44:58PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> jw schultz wrote:
> > I'd rather we default modify-window to 1 for windows.
>
> But windows != FAT. Even a Linux system *could* be using FAT. What's wrong
> with the current state of affairs?
> It's not like the mailing list (rsync or
jw schultz wrote:
> I'd rather we default modify-window to 1 for windows.
But windows != FAT. Even a Linux system *could* be using FAT. What's wrong
with the current state of affairs?
It's not like the mailing list (rsync or cygwin) is flooded with messages
complaining about this.
Max.
--
To un
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 02:12:45PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> jw schultz wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 12:09:14PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> >> Would "creating a file in the same dir" be "too invasive"?
> >> Of course this would only solve the problem if one file is
> >> created/tested "per
jw schultz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 12:09:14PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>> Would "creating a file in the same dir" be "too invasive"?
>> Of course this would only solve the problem if one file is
>> created/tested "per directory"...
>> I guess cygwin HAS a call to examine the mount table
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 12:09:14PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>
> >Unless someone feels like making a FAT-detection patch, the previous status
> >quo looks to me like the best option.
> >
> Would "creating a file in the same dir" be "too invasive"?
> Of course this would only
Max Bowsher wrote:
Unless someone feels like making a FAT-detection patch, the previous status
quo looks to me like the best option.
Would "creating a file in the same dir" be "too invasive"?
Of course this would only solve the problem if one file is
created/tested "per directory"...
I guess c
Thanks, you saved me some trouble. I put it in.
- Dave
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 06:52:30PM -0800, jw schultz wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:57:16PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 04:38:09PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > > Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > > > This modify-window
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:57:16PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 04:38:09PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > > This modify-window default of 1 has been causing some trouble on the
> > > rsync test suite on the Cygwin test machine on build.samba.org. The
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 04:38:09PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > This modify-window default of 1 has been causing some trouble on the
> > rsync test suite on the Cygwin test machine on build.samba.org. The
> > problem is that some files get created and immediately copied with
Dave Dykstra wrote:
> This modify-window default of 1 has been causing some trouble on the
> rsync test suite on the Cygwin test machine on build.samba.org. The
> problem is that some files get created and immediately copied within
> one second, and then the rsync code that implements '-p' checks
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 05:18:07PM -0600, Dave Dykstra wrote:
> I had a friend run some Cygwin tests and we found that --modify-window=1
> works just as well as --modify-window=2 on FAT filesystems to copy files
> from Unix and detect the difference in granularity. FAT filesystems always
> have ti
Dave Dykstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 06:32:08PM +0100, Greger Cronquist wrote:
>> --- Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev: > Dave Dykstra
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm using the current Cygwin release
>>> (rsync-2.5.5-2). That is rsync-2.5.5,
>>> with an added msleep(30) which is intended to dea
> http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/rsync/2002-August/008130.html
> but it still experienced hangs. It wasn't clear if the patch reduced
> the frequency or not.
It didn't fix it for us. We sync Win9x clients to a Win2k server running
rsync as service.
Hangs and connection reset by peer happe
> Has *anybody* been able to figure out a fix for this that really works?
Why does the receiving child wait in a loop to get killed, rather than
just exit()? I presume cygwin has some problem or race condition in the
wait loop, kill and wait_process().
The pipe to the parent will read 0 bytes (E
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 06:32:08PM +0100, Greger Cronquist wrote:
> --- Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev: > Dave Dykstra
> wrote:
>
> > I'm using the current Cygwin release
> > (rsync-2.5.5-2). That is rsync-2.5.5,
> > with an added msleep(30) which is intended to deal
> > with a possible pr
--- Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev: > Dave Dykstra
wrote:
> I'm using the current Cygwin release
> (rsync-2.5.5-2). That is rsync-2.5.5,
> with an added msleep(30) which is intended to deal
> with a possible problem
> with signals in Cygwin.
Making that msleep(100) works even better for m
Dave Dykstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:10:39AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Dave Dykstra wrote:
>>> While doing the tests we too experienced hangs at the end of copies.
>>> We were going over openssh from a Solaris 9 box to Windows 2000
>>> Cygwin.
>>> We tried the test from
>>> http:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 05:18:07PM -0600, you [Dave Dykstra] wrote:
>
> While doing the tests we too experienced hangs at the end of copies.
> We were going over openssh from a Solaris 9 box to Windows 2000 Cygwin.
> We tried the test from
> http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/rsync/2002-August/
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:10:39AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Dave Dykstra wrote:
> > While doing the tests we too experienced hangs at the end of copies.
> > We were going over openssh from a Solaris 9 box to Windows 2000
> > Cygwin.
> > We tried the test from
> > http://lists.samba.org/piper
Dave Dykstra wrote:
> While doing the tests we too experienced hangs at the end of copies.
> We were going over openssh from a Solaris 9 box to Windows 2000
> Cygwin.
> We tried the test from
> http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/rsync/2002-August/008130.html
> but it still experienced hangs. It
I had a friend run some Cygwin tests and we found that --modify-window=1
works just as well as --modify-window=2 on FAT filesystems to copy files
from Unix and detect the difference in granularity. FAT filesystems always
have timestamps that have an even number of seconds. On the other hand,
NTFS
23 matches
Mail list logo
