On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT 
net> wrote:
>  And I, like an idiot, didn't notice we were discussing an NFS problem, which
>  may be another manifestation of the same problem, but that patch does not
>  address what happens when the linux device mapper decides to move an LVM2
>  volume from 253,0 ro 254,0.

The patch JLM posted won't fix it, but his proposed command-line option will.

>  Thats why I'm asking about Schiling Tar, aka S-Tar.  Does that fix the
>  problem?, and can amanda use it?

Yes, but its semantics are very different from GNU Tar -- it's not a
drop-in fix.

>  The ultimate weapon of course in any philosophical war, which this is, is to
>  fork tar and fix it if STar isn't usable.  At this point, and while I'm not
>  capable of doing it, I'm not a bit allergic to the fork idea.  Its bitten me
>  so often that I'll alpha test anybodies efforts in that regard.  Gleefully.

Sure, but threatening a fork is un-diplomatic, and not called for just
yet.  Let's start with a concerted public-relations effort :)

>  Humm, didn't we have some scripts that could inspect and repair the index
>  files when this happened?  Probably lost when I woke up one morning and found
>  my well developed FC6 install wasn't re-bootable, LSN0 on /dev/hda had one
>  non-zero byte left in it.

Yep -- it's called tar-snapshot-edit, and it's available in recent
releases of GNU Tar.  Just google for it.

Dustin

-- 
Storage Software Engineer
http://www.zmanda.com