On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:06:03PM -0500, Steve Sether wrote:
> select(4, NULL, [3], NULL, {60, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
> select(4, NULL, [3], NULL, {60, 0}) = 0 (Timeout)
I checked in a fix for this problem: now when the receiver notices that
the socket is dead, it lets the generator know about
Here's the strace output: I'm not terribly familiar with system
programming, so I'm unsure how to interpret it.
write(4, "2005/10/03 13:58:12 [16992] recv"..., 137) = 137
select(8, [7], [3], NULL, {60, 0}) = 1 (in [7], left {59, 66})
select(8, [7], [], NULL, {60, 0}) = 1 (in [7], l
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 10:25:41PM -0500, Steve Sether wrote:
> I have about 10 modules configured and I still get this problem.
> Any advice on finding out what's going on Wayne?
I'd suggest that you get a system-call trace of the generator that
covers the period of activity during the socket clo
Hi,
> - Original Message -
> From: vv
> To: rsync@lists.samba.org
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:14 PM
> Subject: Re: probbable generator hang bug in rsync
>
> Hi,
>
> (Sorry for starting a new thread, i found it on web archives, and i don't
have th
Hi,
(Sorry for starting a new thread, i found it on web
archives, and i don't have the list history because i've just
subscribed).
I just wanted to say i'm having exactly the same
problem, through openVPN, when the rsync client is stopped with SIGINT (and
possibly by other means such as
> Wow, that's unexpected. I had thought that the connection from the
> stunnel process to the rsync process would have been a normal (albeit
> local) socket connection. Perhaps it is not? Or perhaps there is a bug
> that got triggered by this setup. The way rsync works, it has two
> separate pr
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 06:04:16PM -0500, Steve Sether wrote:
> Could this be a problem with Linux? I've tried killing the
> stunnel process (as well as the parent stunnel process) on
> the server, and the rsync process persists.
Wow, that's unexpected. I had thought that the connection from the
Could this be a problem with Linux? I've tried killing the
stunnel process (as well as the parent stunnel process) on
the server, and the rsync process persists. Shouldn't rsync
get an error if there's nothing on the receiving end?
I have tried this without stunnel, and the generator dies
like i
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:53:48PM -0500, Steve Sether wrote:
> The generator process on an rsync server seems to get stuck in
> an infinite loop after a client process dies.
That's very strange. The generator is trying to write data down the
socket, and if the other end of the socket connection
