I can try snoop to check. But I dont think this problem is caused by the
other end. The other end is one machine with S10U5, I have tried this
test on other machines with snv_91 or privious build, no problem.

2008/7/15, Brian Utterback <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I don't know what is going on, but to me it looks like the problem is at
> the other end. This shows that rcp is getting a premature EOF indication on
> the data stream. Either the local OS is erroneously delivering an EOF when
> one was received (unlikely) or the other end sent it. You could use snoop to
> check which it is. You could use truss and snoop on the other end to help
> you determine why. A snoop would confirm that the data stream was actually
> closed by the other host, since firewalls have been known to do this kind of
> thing.
>
>
> zhihui Chen wrote:
>
>> Hello all, I have met a strange rcp issue with snv_92. When I copy a file
>> from remote machine to local through rcp, the copy result will be decided by
>> file size.  If the size of file <=8k, then rcp is OK, like following:
>>  intel6# rcp irperf:`pwd`/test8k .
>> intel6# ls -l test8k
>> -rw-r--r--   1 root     root        8192 Jul 14 23:50 test8k
>>  If the size of file >8k, the rcp does work, like following:
>>
>> intel6# rcp irperf:`pwd`/test10k .
>> rcp: dropped connection
>> intel6# ls -l test10k
>> -rw-r--r--   1 root     root           0 Jul 14 23:51 test10k
>>
>> But if I add "truss" before rcp, then rcp works, like following:
>>  intel6# truss rcp irperf:`pwd`/test10k .
>> .....
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 10240)    = 7300
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 2940)     = 2920
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 20)       = 20
>> write(5, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 10240)   = 10240
>> fcntl(5, F_FREESP64, 0x08027B44)                = 0
>> close(5)                                        = 0
>> read(4, "\0", 1)                                = 1
>> write(4, "\0", 1)                               = 1
>> read(4, 0x08027C30, 1)                          = 0
>> close(4)                                        = 0
>> _exit(0)
>> intel6# ls -l test10k
>> -rw-r--r--   1 root     root       10240 Jul 14 23:53 test10k
>>
>> If the size of file become larger, then "truss rcp" does not work either,
>> like following:
>>  intel6# truss rcp irperf:`pwd`/test100k .
>> .......
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 65536)    = 13140
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 52396)    = 4380
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 48016)    = 7300
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 40716)    = 8760
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 31956)    = 10220
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 21736)    = 11680
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 10056)    = 1624
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 8432)     = 7300
>> read(4, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0".., 1132)     = 328
>> read(4, 0x080D698C, 804)                        = 0
>> llseek(5, 0, SEEK_CUR)                          = 0
>> fcntl(5, F_FREESP64, 0x08027B44)                = 0
>> write(4, "01 r c p :   d r o p p e".., 25)      = 25
>> rcp: dropped connection
>> write(2, " r c p :   d r o p p e d".., 24)      = 24
>> close(5)                                        = 0
>> _exit(1)
>> intel6# ls -l test100k
>> -rw-r--r--   1 root     root           0 Jul 14 23:45 test100k
>>  Does anyone have met similar issue and how to solve this issue?
>>  -----
>> zhihui
>> Intel OpenSolaris Team
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> networking-discuss mailing list
>> [email protected]
>>
>
> --
> blu
>
> There are two rules in life:
> Rule 1- Don't tell people everything you know
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom
>



-- 
zhihui
Intel OpenSolaris Team
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]

Reply via email to