Hi,

Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote on 2011-10-06 19:28:38 -0400 [Re: [BackupPC-users] 
Bad md5sums due to zero size (uncompressed)?cpool files - WEIRD BUG]:
> Holger Parplies wrote at about 17:54:05 +0200 on Thursday, October 6, 2011:
> [...]
>  > Actually, what I would propose [...] would be to
>  > test for pool files that decompress to zero length. [...]
> 
> Actually this could be made even faster since there seem to be 2
> cases:
> 1. Files of length 8 bytes with first byte = 78 [no rsync checksums]
> 2. Files of length 57 bytes with first byte = d7 [rsync checksums]
> 
> So, all you need to do is to stat the size and then test the
> first-byte

I'm surprised that that isn't faster by orders of magnitude. Running both
BackupPC_verifyPool and the modified version which does exactly this in
parallel, it's only about 3 times as fast (faster, though, when traversing
directories currently in cache). An additionally running 'find' does report
some 57-byte files, but they don't seem to decompress to "". Let's see how
this continues. I still haven't found a single zero-length file in my pool
so far (BackupPC_verifyPool at 3/6/*, above check at 2/0/*).

Regards,
Holger

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/