rsync - Jun 2004 - [Kde-mirrors] rsync errors from rsync.kde.org

Hi,

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> it seems a lot of people get recently rsync protocol errors from
> rsync.kde.org. Part of the problem is probably that we upgraded to rsync
> 2.6.2 due to security problems with older versions.
>
> the newer rsync release contains a newer rsync protocol that appears to be
not
> fully backward compatible. The newer, improved protocol should be faster
and
> less memory hungry too.
>
> those of you who experience a protocol error during rsyncing.. are you all
> using an older version of rsync? which one? perhaps that helps debugging
the
> problem.
ftp.gwdg.de has senn lots of rsync aborts with master.kde.org - I had the
picture that probably master.kde.org got slashdotted since last friday by
being a SUSE mirror...

Yes, ftp.gwdg.de is still using the "old" rsync:

  emoenke@ftp:0 01:47:48 /mirr/bin > rsync --version
  rsync  version 2.5.7  protocol version 26

and I guess I can't change that due to anasty bug of the new rsync
version:

If I have configured a "--backup-dir" and the new rsync version finds
a
second file which has to get deposited there, it is thinking that it is
an error 23 that the backup directory already is existing.

This is more than nasty for me, it is not tolarable if I like to track my
server's activities with the help of rsync return codes - which indeed all
the time was a huge improvement over any ftp protocol mirroring, the main
advantage beneath the true "inode data mirroring" of rsync in my
opinion.

Cheers -e
-- 
Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)

On Wednesday 09 June 2004 01:53, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:

> ftp.gwdg.de has senn lots of rsync aborts with master.kde.org - I had the
> picture that probably master.kde.org got slashdotted since last friday by
> being a SUSE mirror...
we were talking about rsync.kde.org here.. there are no known problems with 
master.kde.org (which is used for ftp.kde.org rsyncing). 


Dirk

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 01:53:52AM +0200, Eberhard Moenkeberg
wrote:
> If I have configured a "--backup-dir" and the new rsync version
finds a
> second file which has to get deposited there, it is thinking that it is
> an error 23 that the backup directory already is existing.
This has been fixed in CVS for a while now.  If possible, please try it
out.  If you'd prefer not to use the CVS version, it shouldn't be too
much longer now before I start up a new pre-release cycle, and I'd very
much like to get a lot of people testing it when it happens.

..wayne..