Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Additional Info.
Command as: lsyncd -log scarce -nodaemon ~/.lipsyncd/lsyncd_config
Original comment by chungyan5@gmail.com
on 8 Jun 2011 at 4:21
Attachments:
Try once witout exclude, maybe your excludeFrom is coming in the way?
Also check if the kernels
/proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches
is set large enough.
Original comment by axk...@gmail.com
on 11 Jun 2011 at 3:00
"less /proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches", it is "8192"
i removed the excludeFrom="/home/yan/.lipsyncd/lipsyncd_exclude_file", and it
is the same result. lipsyncd.status shows me "Inotify watching 7995
directories", still some directories does not include inside lipsyncd.status,
and the file(s) inside cannot be sync to server.
Original comment by chungyan5@gmail.com
on 11 Jun 2011 at 4:28
Several possibilties:
a) try increasing proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches
b) check whatever user Lsyncd runs with, has enough permissions for that
directories
c) check the logfiles for any messages.
Original comment by axk...@gmail.com
on 11 Jun 2011 at 4:47
a)i changed from 8192 to 16384, the lipsyncd.status as "Inotify watching 15397
directories", then the previous un-monitoring directory is been monitoring now.
I will take a look other directories when daily using.
Or, i should reduce the number of directories i need to monitor.
b)all files and directory is inside my home directory, so it is my own
permissions
c)in my lsyncd_config, it is logfile = "/home/yan/.lipsyncd/lipsyncd.log",
but no nay log message.
Original comment by chungyan5@gmail.com
on 12 Jun 2011 at 8:08
Similarly I just noticed on one of our servers that no notification was given
that some of the directories could not be watched due to the
/proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches not being set high enough. In the past
(pre 2.x) I did see notifications, not anymore :(
Original comment by randy.re...@gmail.com
on 7 Jul 2011 at 8:36
I'll make the next version of Lsyncd quit in case it doesn't get a watch due to
exceeding the limit.
Its always better not to run than in some kind of quirky state.
Original comment by axk...@gmail.com
on 7 Jul 2011 at 9:59
Fixed for 2.0.5 (in SVN already)
Original comment by axk...@gmail.com
on 18 Aug 2011 at 9:08
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
chungyan5@gmail.com
on 8 Jun 2011 at 2:59