Continuation of "Arrrgh! rsync "chroot failed" error message!"

Discussion in 'Linux Networking' started by kenney, Aug 8, 2006.

  1. kenney

    kenney Guest

    I find myself in the same situation of the author of the thread
    entitled "Arrrgh! rsync "chroot failed" error message!" See
    http://tinyurl.com/o9kog or
    http://groups.google.ca/group/comp....c233a?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#9bb8512e8f6c233a
    ..

    I am trying to use rsync to synchronize some files between two systems.
    I'm planning on doing this rather frequently, so it's my understanding
    that I should use the rsync daemon mode, and using ssh is basically a
    requirement as well.

    My most recent successful step was to link the /etc/rsyncd.conf file to
    $HOME for my remote user, and I'm now getting this error:

    $ rsync --rsh="ssh" -av --delete test.txt
    remoteHost::ModuleName/my/path

    @ERROR: chroot failed
    rsync error: error starting client-server protocol (code 5) at
    main.c(1296) [sender=2.6.8]

    Basically, what I want to know is this: In the thread above, the
    response was basically, "If you want to use ssh, then don't use the
    rsync daemon." That seems to be a common response on the web. Is it
    true? Is there a sensible way to use both ssh and the rsync daemon?

    As a related question, what is the additional overhead for NOT running
    rsync in daemon mode?

    Thanks.
     
    kenney, Aug 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. kenney

    Chris Davies Guest

    You probably don't want daemon mode at all. In fact, unless you know
    why you need it, disable it. I've never needed daemon mode, and I use
    rsync between many groups of machines.

    I'd recomment this instead:

    rsync -avP --rsh="ssh" --delete test.txt rhost:{optional_remote_path}

    Yes. A daemon would typically be used to control access to an rsync tree
    in situations where the client does not have a login on the server.
    (Think public repository.) If you do have login access to the server
    it's generally far easier to use ssh/rsh and treat rsync like scp/rcp.

    Yes, but you really ought to think about the reasons for wanting both.

    The rsync client has to log in to the remote system (using ssh/rsh). But
    then, the rsync daemon would have to authenticate inbound connections
    anyway, so perhaps it's not a significant overhead.

    Chris
     
    Chris Davies, Aug 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. kenney

    kenney Guest

    Thanks for the response!

    My reason was mainly because I thought that it would use less
    resources. We're developing an Active/Standby system, and the design
    decision was made that the Active system (which is also doing other
    processing, of course) will push changes and sync requests to the
    Standby system.
    Minimizing overhead on the Active system is the goal, but at this point
    I don't have any data on which to base a decision. If there's not a
    big difference, not using the rsync daemon certainly appears to be
    easier.
     
    kenney, Aug 9, 2006
    #3
  4. kenney

    Chris Davies Guest

    You've seen the High Availability site, http://www.linux-ha.org/?
    Chris
     
    Chris Davies, Aug 10, 2006
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.