Actually, I did it this time without stunnel and got the same results:
Nov 29 16:49:49 rio rsyncd[24007]: transfer interrupted (code 20) at
rsync.c(229)
It's literally right at the end of the transfer. Somewhere in renaming
the temp file or something??
-jeremy
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Jeremy
So...it seems I did receive an error from stunnel. So now do I have to go
off to the stunnel list :-)
Nov 29 16:26:04 rio stunnel[20970]: SSL_write (ERROR_SYSCALL): Broken pipe
(32)
Nov 29 16:26:04 rio stunnel[20970]: Connection reset: 53424205 bytes sent
to SSL, 104 bytes sent to socket
No
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2001, Jeremy Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > rsync -avz --progress rsync://localhost/apache_logs/access_log .
>
> tridge just reminded me that -a does *not* detect hardlinks. You need
> -H too.
Hmm, there are no hard links involved
On 29 Nov 2001, Jeremy Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> rsync -avz --progress rsync://localhost/apache_logs/access_log .
tridge just reminded me that -a does *not* detect hardlinks. You need
-H too.
A documentation bug implied that -a was enough. I've just fixed it.
--
Martin
On 29 Nov 2001, Jeremy Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry. This is a Red Hat 6.2 machine. 2.2.19 kernel. Both ends are the
> same.
OK, thanks.
> > > > > > unexpected EOF in read_timeout
> >
> > That error often means the ssh connection is failing.
>
> The server is running rsyncd a
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2001, Jeremy Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Linux.
>
> By the way when reporting bugs like this it is good to give a more
> specific description, like "RedHat 7.1 on x86".
Sorry. This is a Red Hat 6.2 machine. 2.2.19 kernel. Bot
On 29 Nov 2001, Dave Madole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It also seems that at one point rsync wasn't recognizing that "two" of the
> 800M files were actually hard linked together, although in the same run it
> did fine with smaller files (of the same name in different directories).
That's an in
On 29 Nov 2001, Jeremy Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux.
By the way when reporting bugs like this it is good to give a more
specific description, like "RedHat 7.1 on x86".
> Other files are ok, even files that are simular in size, I have a
> 700meg file that seems ok.
>
> I'm aware
I've had similar problems with a >800M file and 2.4.7pre4. In one transfer,
the program just
went away, and resulted in reiserfs going into an endless loop waiting for a
buffer to be freed (the machine had to be rebooted, but I'd say that even the
potential for going into an endless loop like that
Linux. Other files are ok, even files that are simular in size, I have a
700meg file that seems ok.
I'm aware of the 2 gig limit, but these files aren't close to 2gigs.
Note that I get very bad behavior with 2.4.7pre4, it doesn't even attempt
to copy, 2.4.6 just seems to fail at the end.
-
yOn Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Jeremy Hansen wrote:
>
> rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (0 bytes read so far)
> rsync error: error in rsync protocol data stream (code 12) at io.c(139)
Just a note here, if I move the rsync server back to 2.4.6, I'm at least
able to initiate an actual copy. 2.4.7p
rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (0 bytes read so far)
rsync error: error in rsync protocol data stream (code 12) at io.c(139)
Also, on 2.4.6 I was getting this:
access_log
write failed on access_log : Success
unexpected EOF in read_timeout
THis is about an 800meg file I'm trying to copy.
12 matches
Mail list logo
