[Box Backup-dev] A new problem with diffing large files?

Ben Summers boxbackup-dev at fluffy.co.uk
Wed Feb 15 18:41:32 GMT 2006


On 15 Feb 2006, at 18:35, Gary wrote:

>>> I cannot say, since there is no Win32 version yet with KeepAlive(),
>>> yet (except for old Nick's
>>> release tree for 0.9).
>>
>> What about the versions which Chris keeps on posting?
>
> Those, apparently, did not include the KeepAlive(). The  
> implementation for the command was there,
> but it was not being called (?).

I think his latest one does, but let's see what he says.


>
>>>> Has anyone actually tested the keep-alive stuff on UNIX platforms?
>
> I actually tested my old 0.9 code very extensively under Cygwin  
> (client) and RedHat 9.0
> (client/server). Both worked well.
>
>> How do you know that this is the case? Have you checked the logs on
>> the server?
>
> The server does not report any network-related problems or timeouts.

Can I see the logs so I can tell what's going on there?  
ExtendedLogging preferred.


>
>> You might see this error if the server ran out of space in the
>> account, but you can only tell if you look at the logs on the server
>> as well.
>
> No, still plenty of space under the account. My soft limit is about  
> twice as large as my maximum
> backup size, thus Box should start deleting content in case it runs  
> out of space (hitting soft
> limit) without waiting for housekeeping.

Good to eliminate the "obvious".


>
>> It does transmit data! There is no timeout in the Box Backup code,
>> only in the underlying OS socket. Sending a few bytes is more than
>> enough to convince the remote side that it's still being used.
>
> Ok, so KeepAlive() should have done its job, and the problem occurs  
> with my original 0.9 code as
> well (confirmed KeepAlive() getting called). So, it follows, this  
> is either some kind of a freak
> network problem/error unrelated to KeepAlive(), or something  
> entirely new, that KeepAlive() does
> not solve.

So you can repeat this with the latest server and latest client?

I must confess to being a little confused now.


>> The basic Protocol code has not changed.
>
> Yeah, but we've been having large file diff/upload problems for a  
> year now, we should really solve
> this once and for all :).

Yes.

Ben






More information about the Boxbackup-dev mailing list