On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 10:38:54AM -0400, Andrew J. Schorr wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:35:50AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> >
> > You could try turning on transfer logging i suppose. If you
> > haven't already done so you might want to use the "log file"
> > option in case chroot is getting
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:17:03PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2003, Lee Wiltbank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have been working on a project to Openssl'ify Rsync. I am having
> > problems when Rsync forks two processes to handle a sender and was
> > wondering if anyone else would
--On Wednesday, June 18, 2003 09:40:22 -0400 Michael Kohne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Finally figured the problem out. It turns out that our daemon wasn't
clearing the signal mask before execing the child. Rsync seems to use some
signals for the various processes to communicate with each other,
I am a little confused regarding the above files. As I read the man
pages, the passwd file is for the password of the user as which the
rsync server runs - on the server machine. The secrets files (AFAIK)
contain the name:password for the valid users of rsync. Some problems
that arose ("address fam
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:35:50AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
>
> You could try turning on transfer logging i suppose. If you
> haven't already done so you might want to use the "log file"
> option in case chroot is getting in the way. Beyond this i
> have no suggestions; i dont use rsyncd.
I may
jw schultz said:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 05:16:11PM -0400, Michael Kohne wrote:
>> I'm getting some odd behaviour from rsync - a lockup when doing local
>> copies. I tried to search the list archives, but I only came up with a
>> couple of hits from 2001 indicating folks thought this (or a simil
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 10:02:37PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 15 May 2003, Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I can't really see that doing smaller writes will lead to packets being
> > padded, unless you're doing really small writes (ref. the ATM 48-byte
> > packets); the TCP and
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:52:10PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:26:48AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> > > On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oops. Missed one line in the la
On 15 May 2003, Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't really see that doing smaller writes will lead to packets being
> padded, unless you're doing really small writes (ref. the ATM 48-byte
> packets); the TCP and IP headers will always be added, which means that
> the extra overhead
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:28:32PM +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> > On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
> >
> > Thankyou. That looks good.
> >
> > If we're go
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:26:48AM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> > On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
> >
> > Thankyou. That looks good.
> >
> > If we're goin
On 4 Feb 2003, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes but i'd like to hear from some people who know network
> performance programming.
I know only enough to be mildly dangerous. :-)
I don't think you can do this optimally in userspace, because there is
lots of buffering between what we w
On 18 Jun 2003, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> > On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
> >
> > Thankyou. That looks good.
> >
> > If we're going to m
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
>
> Thankyou. That looks good.
>
> If we're going to make this more accurate it might be worthwhile to
> actually look at ho
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:09:59PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
>
> Thankyou. That looks good.
>
> If we're going to make this more accurate it might be worthwhile to
> actually look at ho
On 20 Feb 2003, Lee Wiltbank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been working on a project to Openssl'ify Rsync. I am having
> problems when Rsync forks two processes to handle a sender and was
> wondering if anyone else would be able to lend a hand or some
> pointers. I have posted to mailing.o
On 17 Jun 2003, Rogier Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oops. Missed one line in the last patch
Thankyou. That looks good.
If we're going to make this more accurate it might be worthwhile to
actually look at how long we really did sleep for, and use that to
adjust time_to_sleep rather t
17 matches
Mail list logo