Dear Sir,
*¡°ÖзͨÅä¼þ³§¡±×¨ÒµÉú²úVE±ÃÍ·(VE·ÖÅä±Ã±ÃÍ·×ܳÉ),Ö÷ÒªÐͺÅÓÐ
ÎåÊ®Áå4JB1,¿µÃ÷˹6BT,ÒÀά¿ÂµÍÅÅ·Å,ÎåÊ®ÁäƤ¿¨.
* ÖзͨÅä¼þ³§ÓжàÄêÉú²úVE±ÃÍ·µÄ¾Ñé, ×÷Ϊ½ÏÔç½øÈëÓͱÃÓÍ×ìÐÐ
ÒµµÄרҵ³§,ÎÒÃÇʱ¿Ì¸ú×Ù¹ú¼Ê¸÷µØÆäËü²ñÓÍȼÓÍÅçÉäϵͳµÄÖÆ
Howdy...
Can we get RID of this member? This is the 2nd time I have seen this
posted. Now after the first time, I figured it would have been put into a
SPAM filter, and thereby the member would not be able to post SPAM to the
list again, but that does not seen to be the case.
I still suggest
On 8 Dec 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Howdy...
Can we get RID of this member? This is the 2nd time I have seen this
posted. Now after the first time, I figured it would have been put into a
SPAM filter, and thereby the member would not be able to post SPAM to the
list again, but that
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Martin Pool wrote:
- misunderstandings of how to use rsync (operator error)
- massively incomplete reports (e.g. just it fails, without any
error message.)
- architectural limitations (e.g. upfront scan)
- other junk entries
Too many people fail to realize that
On 9 Dec 2002, R P Herrold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really a better FAQ editor process seems more useful. Isn't
this the purpose of a CVS and commit privileges -- set up one
or more trusted editors with rights, and delegate that aspect.
Anybody who wants to maintain the FAQ-O-Matic
I've been studying the read and write buffering in rsync and it turns
out most I/O is done just a couple of bytes at a time. This means there
are lots of system calls, and also most network traffic comprises lots
of small packets. The behavior is most extreme when sending/receiving
file deltas
