Wow- excellent!
Please help me understand what's "normal" for rsync development-
is it likely, or routine, or will-take-some-time, (or all-of-the-above),
for that patch to be vetted and integrated into mainline rsync released code?

I can see where this can be immediately useful to sites like
the one I mentioned, so I'll be happy to get it to folks I come across.
Beyond that, any insight into what the normal integration trajectory is for
such a patch, is also much appreciated.

Thanks again,

At 7:41 PM -0800 11/1/05, Wayne Davison wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 01:03:39PM -0500, Lawrence D. Dunn wrote:
>> I'd like to request/suggest that cli options to set TCP send/receive
>> buffers be added to rsync client-side.

>That's simple enough to do. The attached patch adds the option
>--sockopts=OPTIONS that accepts the same option names as the daemon's
>"socket options" config-file setting. For example:
> rsync -av --sockopts=SO_SNDBUF=1234,SO_RCVBUF=1234 host::module
>The patch also makes the new option accepted by the daemon's command-
>line parser, allowing whomever starts the daemon to override the config
>file's "socket option" settings via the command-line.
>Also note that popt's aliases can be used to make that easier to type.
>For instance, if you put a line like this into your ~/.popt file:
> rsync alias --fast --sockopts=SO_SNDBUF=1234,SO_RCVBUF=1234
>That will allow you to specify --fast as an rsync option.
>Attachment converted: PB17.1.65GB:sockopts.diff (TEXT/ttxt) (000E6BBF)

To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html