exit status 13 in version 3.1
matt at mattmccutchen.net
Thu Nov 12 23:00:45 MST 2009
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 21:47 -0800, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Matt McCutchen
> <matt at mattmccutchen.net> wrote:
> It looks like the implementation has the receiver hang around
> for a
> hard-coded 10 seconds, accepting data from the sender and
> discarding it.
> No, it sets a timeout of 10 seconds (i.e. 10 seconds of inactivity),
You're right, my mistake.
> which in the new protocol should never be reached because the "we're
> exiting with an error" message gets everyone to die in unison.
Unless the network is slow. IMO, hard-coding values like this should be
avoided when an easy alternative exists.
> The necessity of discarding data is there due to the pipelining nature
> of rsync, particularly if the error is coming from the receiver.
I understand that the data discarding serves to avoid giving the sender
a write error so that it survives to read the message explaining the
error exit. My point is that it's a clunky way to achieve the goal, and
it would be simpler for the sender to just keep reading after a write
More information about the rsync