This is a discussion on Re: Nulls instead of data within the Rsync forums, part of the Networking and Network Related category; On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Wayne Davison wrote: > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:06:07 -0700 > From: ...
|
|||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|||
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Wayne Davison wrote:
> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:06:07 -0700 > From: Wayne Davison <wayned@samba.org> > To: Wojtek.Pilorz <wpilorz@bdk.pl> > Cc: rsync@lists.samba.org > Subject: Re: Nulls instead of data > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Wojtek.Pilorz wrote: > > After patching rsync with the patch provided, rsync did not quietly > > produced bad file, which is good, and, unfortunately, it did not produce > > any data, so there is still some room for improvement; > > If you want the partial data saved (instead of discarded), specify > --partial. Otherwise, I don't see what else you expect rsync to do > after getting an I/O read error on the source file. > > ..wayne.. > Oh, I understand. Unfortunately, I could not make more tests during my normal working hours unless I modify rsync to use smaller read size - reading 256KB over that slow and unstable link would make other users of that link very unhappy. So my question goes: I would like to recompile rsync with smaller buffers; in rsync.h I can see #define SPARSE_WRITE_SIZE (1024) #define WRITE_SIZE (32*1024) #define CHUNK_SIZE (32*1024) #define MAX_MAP_SIZE (256*1024) #define FILE_EXTENT (256 * 1024) #define HLINK_EXTENT (128 * 1024) which values should I change to have e.g. 24KBytes in one read, if that is possible? BTW. Was that expected that after unsuccessful read (that one with EIO) data was still written by the process, with nulls from some point? It is interesing to compare trace with system log, which says Sep 21 08:54:36 pc2 kernel: SMB server not responding Sep 21 08:54:36 pc2 kernel: smb_request: result -5, setting invalid Sep 21 08:54:36 pc2 kernel: smb_file_read: transftest/rsync-2.6.6.tar.gz validation failed, error=4294967291 Sep 21 08:54:41 pc2 kernel: smb_retry: successful, new pid=2762, generation=40 Sep 21 08:58:32 pc2 kernel: SMB server not responding Sep 21 08:58:32 pc2 kernel: smb_get_length: recv error = 5 Sep 21 08:58:32 pc2 kernel: smb_request: result -5, setting invalid Sep 21 08:58:32 pc2 kernel: smb_file_read: transftest/rsync-2.6.6.tar.gz validation failed, error=4294967291 Sep 21 08:58:34 pc2 kernel: smb_retry: successful, new pid=2762, generation=41 I would understand that second read was attempted while SMB process was about retrying, and that failed. Perhaps if read had been retried after a few seconds of sleeping it would succeed. But I am not suggesting that rsync would be an appropriate place for such hacks. Best regards, Wojtek -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |