On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> My point is that it's a clunky way to achieve the goal, and it would be
> simpler for the sender to just keep reading after a write error.
>
Yeah, that's a good idiom, and the latest code wasn't doing a good enough
job of that when the soc
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 21:47 -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Matt McCutchen
> wrote:
> It looks like the implementation has the receiver hang around
> for a
> hard-coded 10 seconds, accepting data from the sender and
> discarding it.
>
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> It looks like the implementation has the receiver hang around for a
> hard-coded 10 seconds, accepting data from the sender and discarding it.
>
No, it sets a timeout of 10 seconds (i.e. 10 seconds of inactivity), which
in the new protocol
On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 09:38 -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
> Yeah, that's the long-standing issue where a fatal error on the server
> side can cause the client side to get a socket error trying to write
> to the socket before it has a chance to read the error(s) from the
> socket. The latest git arch
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 01:57 -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> I tested commit 2907af472d1f33b3c422cb9f601c121b242aa9c7 and, again, the
> output is different but the problem is not fixed:
>
> $ rsync-dev big-file small-fs/
> rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (146 bytes received so far) [sender]
>
On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 09:38 -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Matt McCutchen
> wrote:
>
> With commit 84c11e85a4c4a12ecacba24afe9617222e4361e6, I get
> different
>
> output, but still not the desired "No space left on device":
>
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> With commit 84c11e85a4c4a12ecacba24afe9617222e4361e6, I get different
> output, but still not the desired "No space left on device":
>
Yeah, that's the long-standing issue where a fatal error on the server side
can cause the client side to g
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> rsync error: errors with program diagnostics (code 13) at log.c(340)
> [sender=3.1.0dev]
>
This means that you didn't update recently. Sadly, it appears my reply
mentioning that I fixed the problem only went to Carlos, and missed the
list.
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 12:25 -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 13:20 -0200, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> > Got this in the log:
> >
> > rsync error: errors with program diagnostics (code 13) at log.c(340)
> > [generator=
> > 3.1.0dev]
>
> I got this too on a big local run backing u
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 13:20 -0200, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> Got this in the log:
>
> rsync error: errors with program diagnostics (code 13) at log.c(340)
> [generator=
> 3.1.0dev]
I got this too on a big local run backing up my system to an external
disk using rsnapshot.
/etc/rsnapshot-rsync -a
Carlos Carvalho (car...@fisica.ufpr.br) wrote on 29 October 2009 13:20:
>Got this in the log:
>
>rsync error: errors with program diagnostics (code 13) at log.c(340)
>[generator= 3.1.0dev]
Another event:
rsync: read error: Connection reset by peer (104)rsync error: errors with
program diagno
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Alexandros Papadopoulos wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I use rsync version 2.4.6, protocol version 24 on a RH7.2 machine. The
> purpose is mirroring a Red Hat repository.
>
> All works fine, *except* for really big files. ISO images (~650MB) are a
> good example. Wh
I have rsync-2.4.6-1, and I have same problem...
But I haven`t got any solution
- Original Message -
From: "REIBER, CHRISTIAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 11:07 AM
Subject: exit status 12 when transferring a large file
--- Erhalten von
Toni Pisjak [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
> My question: Is the exit status reliable in the current version ?
It's not 100% reliable, but it does somewhat depend on what you would
consider a failure, since there are some slightly ambiguous cases.
For my part, the cases where I've seen fit to make
Hello !
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Lena M wrote:
> Sometimes when we run rsync, its exit status is 1 even though it looks
> like it runs fine. Does anybody know what it means?
When i installed rsync (v2.4.3, approx. a year ago), i recognized, that
rsync resulted in an exit status 0, even when there a
15 matches
Mail list logo
