On Thursday 21 September 2006 05:09, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Paul Bijnens wrote:
>> On 2006-09-20 11:56, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Josef Wolf wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 03:34:42PM -0400, Jean-Louis Martineau
wrote:
>> > > > > * Works with GNU tar 1.15.91 - work with new gtar state file
>> > > > > format.
>> > > >
>> > > > Can someone please explain what this exactly means?
>> > >
>> > > The format to store information about the incrementals was changed.
>> > > Since Amanda made some assumptions about this format (while she
>> > > shouldn't have cared,
>> > > and just considered it as opaque files), this broke Amanda.
>> > > After the fix, Amanda just treats the files as opaque files.
>> > >
>> > > But be careful, at least the tar 1.15.91-2 from Debian is broken:
>> > > it ignores
>> > > the --one-file-system option when doing incrementals, causing
>> > > exorbitant backup
>> > > sizes for any level > 0. I don't know about the upstream version,
>> > > but since
>> > > this bug has been reported almost 2 months ago, I'm afraid that one
>> > > is broken,
>> > > too.
>> >
>> > Apparently the problem is more subtle. Thanks to the Debian bug
>> > tracking system, I noticed this:
>> >
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=384508
>> > tar: -l option changed meaning, without any warning!
>>
>> OK. But AFAIK (grep *.c in the sources), Amanda does NOT use the
>> -l option, but only the --one-file-system option, since a very long
>> time already.
>>
>> So I think this option name change has nothing to do with the
>> use of gnutar by Amanda. (AFAIK the format of the incremental-state
>> files has changed, and Amanda assumed they were in some line-oriented
>> format instead of handling it as opaque objects.)
>
>Indeed, thanks for reminding me! I just send a clarification to the
> Debian BTS: - 384508 is about -l no longer meaning --one-file-system
> - 377124 is about --one-file-system breaking when combined with
> --listed-incremental (Amanda does pass --one-file-system (not -l) to
> tar)
>
And how does this breakage manifest itself again? Is it by not following
and counting out-of-filesystem links in the estimate phase, but including
them during the backup? This would of course result in "small estimate"
notations.
But here, with one or two exceptions usually caused by me, the errors have
generally been under the 10 meg range. But they combined one night a week
or so ago, to leave 1.5GB of data in the holding disk. I have 45 DLE's in
an attempt to help amanda achieve balance easier, all but 2 or 3 in the 1
GB size range. That same night, it promoted several level 0's from 3 days
ahead, which I thought was a bit odd.
Since I was about to fill the disk, I added another day to dumpcycle and
runspercycle a week ago, but true balance is still elusive.
[root@coyote root]# su amanda -c "amadmin Daily balance"
due-date #fs orig MB out MB balance
----------------------------------------------
9/21 Thu 13 8926 5433 +4.0%
9/22 Fri 5 5404 4727 -9.5%
9/23 Sat 21 6306 3489 -33.2%
9/24 Sun 6 10284 4659 -10.8%
9/25 Mon 4 13862 7824 +49.7%
----------------------------------------------
TOTAL 49 44782 26132 5226
DISTINCT 45 41182 24820
(estimated 5 runs per dumpcycle)
(2 filesystems overdue, the most being overdue 1 day)
No idea if this is good, or suboptimal.
>Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
>--
>Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --
> geert AT linux-m68k DOT org
>
>In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker.
> But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something
> like that. -- Linus Torvalds
--
Cheers, 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)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
|
