Wayne,
Frank Fegert wrote:
> Wayne,
>
> thanks for your prompt response!
>
> [self-inflicted pain snipped]
thanks for your help, but never mind! As usual, the problem
was sitting in front of the keyboard, between the headphones
;-)
For security reasons i use a wrapper script on the sending
machin
Wayne,
thanks for your prompt response!
Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Frank Fegert wrote:
>
>>i'm having a rather strange problem with rsync (v2.6.8). Rsync is run to
>>synchronize
>>two identical, rather old Solaris 2.6 servers.
>
> I have heard of some prob
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 03:03:10PM +0200, Frank Fegert wrote:
> i'm having a rather strange problem with rsync (v2.6.8). Rsync is run to
> synchronize
> two identical, rather old Solaris 2.6 servers.
I have heard of some problems with some Solaris versions of ssh, so it
may help to install openss
> "Dave" == Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:42:31PM -0700, Wayne Davison
Dave> wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
>> > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge
>> > memory footprint when large
At 08:37 PM 5/20/02, you wrote:
>Doing so requires an upfront scan of the entire destination tree, and
>for the client to hold all this information in memory.
[I accidently sent this to Martin instead of the list...]
I wonder if it would be useful to have a partner program that would index
the r
On 21 May 2002, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do shudder when I read about Martin's plans for a complete redesign
> because I have a lot of doubts about how it will affect performance. The
> only reason that Rsync is as popular as it is today is because of its
> performance, and if
ngmont TC
1880 Industrial Circle, Suite D
Longmont, CO 80501
Available via SameTime Connect within Philips, n9hmg on AIM
perl -e 'print pack(,
19061,29556,8289,28271,29800,25970,8304,25970,27680,26721,25451,25970),
".\n" '
"There are some who call me Tim?
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:42:31PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
> > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> > footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> > the list of things to fix.
>
> I have cert
On 20 May 2002, Phil Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:42:31PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
>
> | On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
> | > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> | > footprint when large numbers of files are involv
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:42:31PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
| On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
| > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
| > footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
| > the list of things to fix.
|
| I have cer
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 10:58:33PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
| On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 09:35:04PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
| > On 17 May 2002, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
| [...]
| > I've been thinking about this too. I think the
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 09:35:04PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 17 May 2002, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
[...]
> I've been thinking about this too. I think the top-level question is
>
> Start from scratch with a new protocol, or try
On 17 May 2002, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
> > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> > footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> > the list of things to fix.
>
> I have certainly
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:42:31PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
> > In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> > footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> > the list of things to fix.
>
> I have cert
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Wayne Davison wrote:
> so feel free to tell me exactly where I've missed the boat.
[Replying to myself... hmmm...]
In my description of the _new_ protocol, my references to a generator
process are not really accurate. The current generator process is
forked off after the i
OTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/17/2002 02:42 PM
To: rsync users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: (bcc: Tim Conway/LMT/SC/PHILIPS)
Subject:Improving the rsync protocol (RE: Rsync dies)
Classification:
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrot
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Allen, John L. wrote:
> In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> the list of things to fix.
I have certainly been interested in working on this issue. I think it
might be time t
> In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> the list of things to fix.
I think many would agree. If it were trivial, it'd probably be
done by now.
Fix #1 (what most people do):
Split the fi
Allen, John L. wrote:
> In my humble opinion, this problem with rsync growing a huge memory
> footprint when large numbers of files are involved should be #1 on
> the list of things to fix. It seems that every fifth post is a
> complaint about this problem! Sorry if this sounds like ungrateful
>
]
Subject: Re: Rsync dies
Yeah. You'll have to find a way to break the job up into smaller pieces.
It's a pain, but I have a similar situation - 3M+ files in 130+Gb. I
can't get the whole thing in one chunk, no matter how fast a server with
however much memory, even on Gb et
Yeah. You'll have to find a way to break the job up into smaller pieces.
It's a pain, but I have a similar situation - 3M+ files in 130+Gb. I
can't get the whole thing in one chunk, no matter how fast a server with
however much memory, even on Gb ethernet (for the server). In my case,
the f
21 matches
Mail list logo
