Re: rproxy (Re: WOW! Re: Rsync on servers)
Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 04:52:38PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > >>>>> "Adam" == Adam Heath <email@example.com> writes:
> > Adam> On 11 Nov 2001, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > Adam> Where is this client? Offloading the cpu usage to the Adam>
> > client is a huge win. Also, not requiring a special daemon Adam> on
> > the server is another plus.
> > Pity it has problems talking to non-rproxy servers though, including
> > apache, see bug #83603.
> > I use to use rproxy, but I found it wasn't usable because of this
> > "bug"(???).
> > Does HTTP define a maximum size for a request?
> I do not think so. As the error message indicates, it is a server-imposed
> Unless the Apache in question is rsync-capable, it's a waste of bandwidth to
> send those headers anyway.
Also doesn't lessen the disk IO and cpu load-
May the source be with you.