On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:23:00AM +0200, Vidar Madsen wrote:
> I'm just reporting some strange (fatal) behaviour when running
> rsync --daemon on an IPv6-enabled box.
This should only affect older systems that don't have a proper IPv6
implementation, such as some older 2.4 Linux kernels. The fix
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 03:47:47AM +, Guo jing wrote:
> As you said, if the source file reduced and the blocks were occupied by
> other files there will be a file with other file's content and a abnormal
> end on the other end.
No, the OS doesn't work that way. Rsync will instead copy lots
On 7 Jun 2004, Guo jing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for your answer!
> Yes,my question is that if we can get a good result when the file is
> changing while it is being copied by rsync
>
> In my test, if the file is being augmented while it been copied using
> rsync.I can get a normal
Thanks for your answer!
Yes,my question is that if we can get a good result when the file is
changing while it is being copied by rsync
In my test, if the file is being augmented while it been copied using
rsync.I can get a normal copy on the other end and the result file is the
same as what
Sorry about the double post.
I got an error on the first one (something about an invalid Subject field,
in Spanish, no less), but I realized after sending it again that the error
came from one of the other recipients on the list, not from the list
server.
Vidar
--
To unsubscribe or change optio
Hi all.
I'm just reporting some strange (fatal) behaviour when running
rsync --daemon on an IPv6-enabled box. It gets a fatal error
when trying to bind to the same address twice.
strace output:
bind(4, {sa_family=AF_INET6, sin6_port=htons(873), inet_pton(AF_INET6, "::",
&sin6_addr), sin6_flowi
Hi all.
I'm just reporting some strange (fatal) behaviour when running
rsync --daemon on an IPv6-enabled box. It gets a fatal error
when trying to bind to the same address twice.
strace output:
bind(4, {sa_family=AF_INET6, sin6_port=htons(873), inet_pton(AF_INET6, "::",
&sin6_addr), sin6_flowi
Rsync now has a bug-tracking database on the samba servers. You can
find the relevant links here:
http://rsync.samba.org/bugzilla.html
Anyone who would like to make sure that a bug or feature request does
not fall through the cracks should submit a bug/enhancement report (I've
moved over a f
This is an automatic reply from our mail server.
If you did not send an e-mail, please disregard this mail, because a virus has
simulated your e-mail address.
Our mailserver detected a virus in your mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your message has been blocked and deleted
I just checked in some changes that should help to ensure that the
receiver can't get into a state where it has some data buffered to send
to the generator, but it is waiting for data from the sender first. If
you could test the version from CVS (or snag the latest nightly tar file
from the web si
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 09:52:30AM +1000, Dan Goodes wrote:
> rsync. The symptoms are a broken transfer, with the 'cryptic' error
> message:
> rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (1128806 bytes read so far)
This may mean that the remote rsync crashed, but it may also mean that
the connection wen
11 matches
Mail list logo
