> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:11:07PM -0700, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > That's fine, I was trying everything possible.  Right now with those regexs
> > I'm backing up 60gb a night from that system.  Wouldn't that suggest
> > something is wrong?  I started with just the first regex and added others
> > when it didn't work, so it isn't due to the bad regexes...
 
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:22:27AM -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> Actually I think it somehow is.  I ran a few tests with my gtar.
> The command line was a pipe from one gtar creating an archive to
> another generating a listing.  I wanted to see the effect of
> various exclude patterns in the file.
> 
> My commandline was like this:
> 
>     amgtar --create --exclude-from /var/tmp/exclude \
>            --directory /tmp --file - . | 
>     amgtar --list --file -
> 
> I ran it first without the --exclude-from option, then with the
> option and an empty file.  Same large list of files.
> 
> When I ran it with the option, but with the exclude file missing
> I got an error and no archive was created.
> 
> Next I put a simple pair of patterns in the file:
> 
>   ./s2
>   ./s4
> 
> and the file s2 was excluded, there was no s4 to begin with.
> 
> The next test was to put in the exclude file a single entry,
> 
>    ./*
> 
> This resulted in a single line of output, ./
> i.e. no files were archived but the directory was noted.
> 
> Lastly I put in your three patterns,
> 
>    ./*
>    ,/*
>    *
> 
> The result I got was that nothing was archived, not even "."
> 
> I looked at the last two a little further, collected the
> result of the gtar creation into a file instead of a pipe.
> 
> Each command created a file exactly 10K. The one from a
> single exclude entry (./*) had a little data in the first
> few hundred bytes, then nulls.  The file command recognized
> this as a tar file.
> 
> The corresponding 10K file created with your three patterns
> was simply a file of null bytes.  No data and of course it
> was not recognized by the file command as a tar file.
> 
> Perhaps running the command by hand like this could help
> sort out the exclude patterns for you.
 
That's nice.  Ignore a consistent and repeatable bug report for over a
year, then be sarcastic to the reporter.

I HAVE run these commands by hand.  I sent directly to you the results of
running these commands by hand last year, versus the results displayed in
the amanda report.

And besides, you are making my arguement for me.  Your results show that no
files should have been backed up with the file as shown, however 62gb was
backed up  the previous night.

Now that your own tests have demonstrated that running the command by hand
works, yet amanda is getting something different, would you possibly take 
an interest in finding out why?

-- 
Joe Rhett
senior geek
meer.net