On Monday 17 September 2007 14:25, Martin Simmons wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:10:43 +0200, Kern Sibbald said: > > > > On Monday 17 September 2007 11:44, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > > > * Kern Sibbald schrieb am 17.09.07 um 08:11 Uhr: > > > > On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:46, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Bingo! > > > > > > > > Great. > > > > > > > > > I just commented out the "#define HAV_POSIX_FADVISE" line, > > > > > recompiled... No more crashes. > > > > > > > > > > May this behavior depend on the kernel? The server running bacula > > > > > is a debian sarge system, but it is running an older kernel > > > > > (2.4.20) than what is in sarge because of a special kernel-module. > > > > > > > > Hmmm. I *never* expected HAVE_POSIX_FADVISE to be turned on for a 2.4 > > > > kernel. > > > > > > > > > So my question is: is posix_fadvise() in sarge bad or is it my > > > > > combination of sarge supporting it and that kernel 2.4.20 maybe not > > > > > supporting it? > > > > > > > > I would like to understand why it is turned on on your system. Did > > > > you start your build with a virgin Bacula source directory? or did > > > > you copy it from some previously configured system? > > > > > > I thought I could explain that: > > > > > > I have a build-host running a 2.6 kernel. Every build is done in a > > > separate dedicated chroot-environment for sarge, etch, edgy, feisty > > > and so on. So the kernel at compile may differ from that at > > > runtime. > > > > Oh, this is not a very good situation. It will ultimately lead to these > > kinds of problems. The basic rule is that you always need to build on a > > system as close as possible to the one that will be running -- generally > > minor differences in kernel versions that would occur with updates should > > not cause problems. > > > > > BUT: > > > I now moved that sarge chroot to the machine running 2.4.20. > > > It still detects posix_fadvise! > > > > The problem is probably in the system include header files, which I > > imagine are not correct for your kernel, and that means that Bacula > > detects an API that either does not exist or is some other API on your > > system. > > FWIW, Red Hat 9 (kernel 2.4.20) defines posix_fadvise in glibc, so Bacula > detects it. The implementation however returns ENOSYS.
That is fine. Bacula does the fadvise but it is not mandatory so it ignores the error return (there is one place it is printed for debug only). > > __Martin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
