On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 21:47 -0800, Wayne Davison wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Matt McCutchen > <m...@mattmccutchen.net> 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),
You're right, my mistake. > which in the new protocol should never be reached because the "we're > exiting with an error" message gets everyone to die in unison. Unless the network is slow. IMO, hard-coding values like this should be avoided when an easy alternative exists. > The necessity of discarding data is there due to the pipelining nature > of rsync, particularly if the error is coming from the receiver. I understand that the data discarding serves to avoid giving the sender a write error so that it survives to read the message explaining the error exit. 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. -- 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
