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 archive finally has a fix for this.
It looks like the implementation has the receiver hang around for a hard-coded 10 seconds, accepting data from the sender and discarding it. That's a hack: I don't like to have the sender dependent upon this special cooperation from the receiver in the event of abnormal termination. It seems to me that when the sender hits a write error, it could just read messages on a best-effort basis before exiting, as in the old IO code. Is this approach unworkable for some reason? -- Matt -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html