On Thursday 21 September 2006 10:21, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I noticed 2 things when doing non-level-zero backups:
> 1. Warnings about weird files in /proc, while tar shouldn't have
> entered /proc as it's a different file system
I see, and I'd never see that as I don't have a dle for /, I'm all broken
down into subdirs of /
here, /etc, /bin/home/root, /home/gene, /usr/src, /opt, yadda yadda.
> 2. Backups being way too large, as tar escaped from the file system it
> was backing up.
The obvious result if its broken.
>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.
|
