rsync server complaining about vanishing files while they are not.

Hans Deragon hans at
Mon Jun 7 20:30:56 GMT 2004

Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:11:33PM -0400, Hans Deragon wrote:
>>Jun  7 19:43:27 tux101 rsyncd[24906]: file has vanished: 
>>"redhat/9/en/os/i386/RedHat/RPMS/gtk2-engines-2.2.0-2.i386.rpm" (in module1)
> Rsync will generate that error if the symlink does not point to a valid
> file and -L was specified (this is because it gets an ENOENT error).
> (I'm going to change this so that the error isn't as confusing.)

It points to a valid file, -L is used.  Here is an example of a link

lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root 92 Jun  7 17:41 

> One possibility is that your symlinks are absolute but the files are
> being accessed via an NFS mount (thus making the absolute paths invalid
> on the remote system trying to follow them).  If this is the case, I'd
> suggest making the symlinks relative.  If this is not the case, you'll
> need to figure out why the symlinks aren't valid when rsync reads it.

As seen above, they are absolute, but there is no NFS mounting involved here.  I 
can do a "head" on the symlink and I do get data.  The symlink is working on the 

However, both the symlink and the file reside on the same RAID device, 
/dev/cciss/c0d0p3.  Could RAID be the problem?

>>  I also notice that the rsync server complains with a code 24, while
>>  the client complains with a code 23 (is this normal?).
> I don't see any such behavior if both the server and the client are
> really 2.6.2.

I tried it again and you are right, on the client side I am now getting code 24. 
  I played around and found why I reported 23 earlier.  When rsync client 2.5.7 
interacts with rsync server 2.6.2, code 23 is reported.  But when both the 
client and the server are 2.6.2, code 24 is reported, as it should.  Case closed.

Hans Deragon
Consultant en informatique/Software Consultant
Deragon Informatique inc.     Open source: (Promotion du libre)
mailto:// (Logiciel)

More information about the rsync mailing list