Martin, I want to remind you that there's still an open issue regarding copies when both source and destination are on the local machine (including over NFS): I put a patch into the CVS to automatically imply the '-W' option in that case, and somebody said he was concerned about that because he found that with -W on local copies he had cases where rsync would lock up, and it wouldn't without -W (I presume because -W artificially slows it down). Should there be an option to turn -W back off, overriding that new default (or should the new default be taken back out)? There are a few other options that would be nice to be able to negate (--blocking-io comes to mind), maybe there should be a consistent way of specifying them. Should the bug that causes lockup with -W be investigated (or has it already been fixed with the Wayne Davison patches)? - Dave Dykstra
On 14 Aug 2001, Dave Dykstra <dwd@bell-labs.com> wrote:> Martin, > > I want to remind you that there's still an open issue regarding copies when > both source and destination are on the local machine (including over NFS):Thanks for the reminder. I hope the regression suite will help chase these things out and keep them out. I haven't had time yet to merge and test the nohang patch.> I put a patch into the CVS to automatically imply the '-W' option in that > case, and somebody said he was concerned about that because he found that > with -W on local copies he had cases where rsync would lock up, and it > wouldn't without -W (I presume because -W artificially slows it down).> Should there be an option to turn -W back off, overriding that new default > (or should the new default be taken back out)? There are a few other > options that would be nice to be able to negate (--blocking-io comes to > mind), maybe there should be a consistent way of specifying them. Should > the bug that causes lockup with -W be investigated (or has it already been > fixed with the Wayne Davison patches)?I suppose we should have the --no-* option syntax. That's pretty simple. -- Martin
On 4 Sep 2001 21:24:33 +1000, Martin Poole <mbp@samba.org> wrote:> On 14 Aug 2001, Dave Dykstra <dwd@bell-labs.com> wrote: > > Martin, > > > I want to remind you that there's still an open issue regarding copies when > > both source and destination are on the local machine (including over NFS): > > Thanks for the reminder. I hope the regression suite will help chase > these things out and keep them out. I haven't had time yet to merge > and test the nohang patch. > > > I put a patch into the CVS to automatically imply the '-W' option in that > > case, and somebody said he was concerned about that because he found that > > with -W on local copies he had cases where rsync would lock up, and it > > wouldn't without -W (I presume because -W artificially slows it down). > > > Should there be an option to turn -W back off, overriding that new default > > (or should the new default be taken back out)? There are a few other > > options that would be nice to be able to negate (--blocking-io comes to > > mind), maybe there should be a consistent way of specifying them. Should > > the bug that causes lockup with -W be investigated (or has it already been > > fixed with the Wayne Davison patches)? > > I suppose we should have the --no-* option syntax. That's pretty simple.This didn't make it into 2.5.0. Can you take care of it Martin? Maybe you thought I was going to do it. - Dave