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 than
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 how long we
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 how long we
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 make this more
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
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 going to make this
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 of
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 last patch
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 IP
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 similar
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 be
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
--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,
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 be able
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 in the
15 matches
Mail list logo
