exit status 13 in version 3.1

Matt McCutchen 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 mailing list