Bug #28
closednegative number from FTP
0%
Description
I'm backing up one of my machines (DragonFly 1.2) to another (DragonFly
1.4) before upgrading. I used FTP from the 1.4 machine to the 1.2 machine
to bring over a 3.3G tarball, and at the end of the download, it printed
this:
226 Transfer complete.
-960809325 bytes received in 30:36 (1.73 MB/s)
It appears the ftp program appears to not be using a big enough variable
to track size. I don't know if this is inherited from FreeBSD's ftp, as I
don't have a FreeBSD system with which to test.
Updated by dillon almost 19 years ago
:
:I'm backing up one of my machines (DragonFly 1.2) to another (DragonFly
:1.4) before upgrading. I used FTP from the 1.4 machine to the 1.2 machine
:to bring over a 3.3G tarball, and at the end of the download, it printed
:this:
:
:226 Transfer complete.
:-960809325 bytes received in 30:36 (1.73 MB/s)
:
:It appears the ftp program appears to not be using a big enough variable
:to track size. I don't know if this is inherited from FreeBSD's ftp, as I
:don't have a FreeBSD system with which to test.
:
Looks like. Probably easy to fix, could someone take a quick look
at the code and submit a patch ?
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
Updated by drhodus almost 19 years ago
On 12/28/05, Justin C. Sherrill <justin@shiningsilence.com> wrote:
I'm backing up one of my machines (DragonFly 1.2) to another (DragonFly
1.4) before upgrading. I used FTP from the 1.4 machine to the 1.2 machine
to bring over a 3.3G tarball, and at the end of the download, it printed
this:226 Transfer complete.
-960809325 bytes received in 30:36 (1.73 MB/s)It appears the ftp program appears to not be using a big enough variable
to track size. I don't know if this is inherited from FreeBSD's ftp, as I
don't have a FreeBSD system with which to test.
I think DFly fetch has the same problem.
-DR
Updated by pavalos about 18 years ago
I haven't been able to reproduce this on HEAD with ftp or fetch. Can you try
to duplicate this again?
Updated by justin about 18 years ago
Can't duplicate this on a 1.6 system - this may have been resolved by a
subsequent system update.