rsync 2.5.5, "unexpected tag failures", Solaris 2.6 vs. 2.8, "--b locking-io" workaround

Dave Dykstra dwd at
Thu Dec 5 20:29:26 EST 2002

The problem is in your use of "-e rsh"; --blocking-io is assumed if
the -e value is equal to the RSYNC_RSH define which is usually "remsh"
on solaris but maybe it isn't on solaris 2.8.  The --blocking-io option
is required for most versions of rsh, but it's sometimes difficult for
rsync to know when rsh is being used.  It's very confusing, I know.

- Dave

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:42:19AM -0800, Madole, Dave BGI SF wrote:
> Hi,
> I have been having a problem that seems related to previously reported
> problems
> but persists.
> I am syncing from a 2.6 Solaris box to a 2.8 solaris box.  All are running
> rsync 2.5.5.
> When I sync (commands simplified for example, always using rsh):
> 2.8box% rsync -e rsh 2.6box:/path/path/stuff/ /path/path/newstuff/
> i.e., the 2.6 box is the server, I get spurious, persistent but inconsistent
> "unexpected tag <some number>" failures.  This is, unfortunately, on the 2.8
> box, the way I have to do it.
> When I sync:
> 2.6box% rsync -e rsh /path/path/stuff/ 2.8box:/path/path/newstuff/
> (the 2.8box is the server), it works.  But the 2.6 box isn't where the
> script runs.
> The first command ALSO works if I use the "--blocking-io" option, 
> 2.8box%rsync -e rsh 2.6box:/path/path/stuff/ /path/path/newstuff/
> --blocking-io
> but I'm not sure what the possible side-effects of that might be.  (I picked
> up from the CVS archive that there was some kind of relationship between a
> "socketpair" Solaris bug and the "--blocking-io" option, so tried it, but
> that seemed many versions ago).
> I am not doing the builds myself - sysadmins are doing it.  Is there
> anything special they
> need to do in the 2.6 build to avoid my having to use the "--blocking-io"
> flag?
> Thanks,
> Dave Madole
> -- 
> To unsubscribe or change options:
> Before posting, read:

More information about the rsync mailing list