Like I said, I had this problem and it went away when I compiled on Suse 8.1
in place of Redhat 6.0. I think that is a change from kernel 2.2 to kernel
2.4. In any case, I couldn't create files larger than 2GB on my holding
disk and then I could and so could Amanda.
I checked back and you didn't say what version OS you are using but I think
everyone assumed it was pretty current - some version of 2.4.xx which should
support large files.
The test is to create a file larger than 2.1G on your holding disk(s). If
you can do that with dd, I have no clue why Amanda 2.4 can't either unless,
as you say, for some reason you aren't compiling in the large file support.
I've built several versions of Amanda on several versions of Redhat and Suse
from 6.0 and haven't had compile problems, just the one OS problem.
Dana Bourgeois
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-amanda-users AT amanda DOT org
> [mailto:owner-amanda-users AT amanda DOT org] On Behalf Of William S. Bear
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 7:14 AM
> To: amanda-users AT amanda DOT org
> Subject: RE: 2GB filesize limit?
>
>
>
> I'm running ext3, but I don't think it is the problem.
>
> After looking at the code for output-file.c. I noticed it was
> failing with a 'write' function call with a Maximum File Size
> Exceeded error. I took a look at the code for dump, which
> will properly dump a file >2gb, and noticed macros have been
> setup to reference 'open64', instead of 'open' when large
> file support is enabled.
>
> Getting the kernel and glibc to jive seems to be the problem.
> Suse does have a good article on the current state of lfs at:
>
> http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html
>
> I'm not sure how I should proceed from here. I could easily
> update the open call to open64, and it should work fine.
> But, maybe Amanda dist should be updated to support large
> files with the open64 call or O_LARGEFILE flag. Thoughts?
>
> Will
>
> ------------------
> William S. Bear
> Math Systems Office
> 5-4895
> Vincent Hall 11
> www.math.umn.edu/~bear
> GNUPG Fingerprint: CFB6 A12C 3D44 F0C3 FB8D B902 139E 6939 DC64 ED34
> ------------------
>
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Dana Bourgeois wrote:
>
> > Are you using ext2 or ext3 as your file system? If not, check the
> > file system docs.
> >
> > I ran into this problem with Amanda 2.4.4p1 on a RedHat 7.1
> system but
> > when I switched to Suse 8.1, it went away. I could reproduce the
> > problem with dd but I was also using ext2 file systems. I
> don't what
> > happens if you are using something else. I know that Suse 8.1 dump
> > won't work on a Reiser file system although tar works just fine.
> >
> >
> > Dana Bourgeois
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-amanda-users AT amanda DOT org
> > > [mailto:owner-amanda-users AT amanda DOT org] On Behalf Of Gene Heskett
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:53 AM
> > > To: Toomas Aas; amanda-users AT amanda DOT org
> > > Subject: Re: 2GB filesize limit?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday 15 January 2004 05:27, Toomas Aas wrote:
> > > >> From: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>
> > > >> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:25:54 -0500
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wednesday 14 January 2004 17:42, William S. Bear wrote:
> > > >> >I'm trying to use Amanda to backup to disk (4TB RAID)
> using the
> > > >> >tapeless config from the FAQ. Dumps of the file systems
> > > are well
> > > >> >over 100GB, but Amanda appears to die with the following
> > > error once
> > > >> >the dump reaches 2GB:
> > > >>
> > > >> There is, or should be, a variable named chunksize within the
> > > >> amanda.conf holding disk description. If not there,
> > > you'll need it,
> > > >
> > > >Note that this parameter relates to holding disk, not the actual
> > > >backup image when backing up to hard disk.
> > >
> > > Sorry Toomas, I thought that was a given that most understood.
> > >
> > > >I'm sure this is not a hard-coded limitation of Amanda. I
> > > successfully
> > > >back up a 16 GB DLE to hard disk and I've never had any errors.
> > > >The backup image is stored as one 16 GB file.
> > > >
> > > >> As you can see above the chunksize is set for 1Gb. Now on
> > > my system,
> > > >> that would not be required, but there are still in use,
> > > filesystems
> > > >> which have file size limits of less than infinitity, typically
> > > >> 2GB,
> > > >
> > > >I don't think this is the problem here, since William
> said he can
> > > >create >2 GB files with dd and dump.
> > >
> > > Yes, that bit of incongruity bothered me too. And it got real
> > > curious when I realized he was writing to disk, so if he had the
> > > problem in the holdng disk he really, really should have had the
> > > same problem with the virtual tapes too since they use the same
> > > filesystem. I hit the send button somewhat confused, but
> thinking
> > > there might be a usefull clue someplace in my ramblings.
> > >
> > > >The most likely suspect to me seems to be the tapetype
> definition.
> > > >What's the length set to in the tapetype? If backing up to
> > > hard disk,
> > > >Amanda is said to "emulate" end of tape when hitting the
> > > limit set in
> > > >tapetype. Maybe 2 GB is the default when no limit is set?
> > >
> > > That I don't know, but a peruse of the code should answer that
> > > handily enough. Something I don't have time for this
> morning as I'm
> > > in the middle of a new vinyl on the kitchen floor, fresh
> 1/4 round
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > >--
> > > >Toomas Aas | toomas.aas AT raad.tartu DOT ee |
> > > >http://www.raad.tartu.ee/~toomas/ * No problem is so big
> > > that it can't
> > > >be run away from.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers Toomas, Gene
> > > "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap,
> > > ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed
> Howdershelt
> > > (Author) 99.22% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV
> hillbilly
> > > Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this
> message by Gene
> > > Heskett are: Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights
> > > reserved.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
