rsync error: error in rsync protocol data stream (code 12) at io.c(140)

[Dave Dykstra]

I haven't seen that symptom, but there's a very serious bug in rsync 2.5.2
that could conceivably be causing that.  I suggest using version 2.5.3pre1
from the "preview" directory in the rsync sources area at rsync.samba.org.
It is possible that Debian has already put out their own 2.5.2 that has the
very bad bug solved though, I'm not sure.

- Dave Dykstra

On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 05:55:24PM +0000, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am getting the following error:
> 
> | rsync: open connection using rsh conn /usr/bin/rsync --server --sender
> -v . "/home/andrewm/test-rsync/tree/*"
> | large_file2
> | write failed on large_file2 : Success:06
> | rsync error: error in file IO (code 11) at receiver.c(271)
> | rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (201 bytes read so far)
> | rsync error: error in rsync protocol data stream (code 12) at
> io.c(140)
> 
> I have only just subscribed to this mailing list, so apologies if I have
> missed any discussion on this topic.  A MHonArc conversion of rsync.mbox
> (from rsync.samba.org) suggests I have.  The 'patch' that has been
> mentioned, does it relate to this?  If so, has it been applied to the
> source available at: rsync.samba.org?  Else, how can I get hold of it
> and apply it?
> 
> FYI:
> 
> | andrewm at massachusetts:~/test-rsync$ rsync --version
> | rsync  version 2.5.2  protocol version 26
> | Copyright (C) 1996-2002 by Andrew Tridgell and others
> | <http://rsync.samba.org/>
> | Capabilities: 64-bit files, socketpairs, hard links, symlinks,
> batchfiles, IPv6,
> |               64-bit system inums, 64-bit internal inums
> 
> rsync was installed from Debian's 'testing' packages, i.e. not from
> source.
> 
> | andrewm at connecticut:~$ ls -ltr /home/andrewm/test-rsync/tree/
> | total 1425384
> | -rw-r--r--    1 andrewm  staff    80999190 Feb 25 16:56 large_file2
> <snip> 18 files, all the same size, all ascii randomish text just for
> testing.
> 
> The files I intend to transfer don't need to be hidden from prying eyes,
> but would I benefit from using `ssh' as a more resilient method of
> communication than `rsh'?
> 
> Any comments appreciated.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Andrew McGregor
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
> Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html