On Monday 12 March 2007, Gene Heskett wrote: >On Monday 12 March 2007, Con Kolivas wrote: >>Hi Gene. >> >>On Monday 12 March 2007 16:38, Gene Heskett wrote: >>> I hate to say it Con, but this one seems to have broken the >>> amanda-tar symbiosis. >>> >>> I haven't tried a plain 21-rc3, so the problem may exist there, and >>> in fact it did for 21-rc1, but I don't recall if it was true for >>> -rc2. But I will have a plain 21-rc3 running by tomorrow nights >>> amanda run to test. >>> >>> What happens is that when amanda tells tar to do a level 1 or 2, tar >>> still thinks its doing a level 0. The net result is that the tape is >>> filled completely and amanda does an EOT exit in about 10 of my 42 >>> dle's. This is tar-1.15-1 for fedora core 6. >> >>I'm sorry but I have to say I have no idea what any of this means. I >> gather you're making an association between some application >> combination failing and RSDL cpu scheduler. Unfortunately the details >> of what the problem is, or how the cpu scheduler is responsible, >> escape me :( > >I have another backup running right now, after building a plain >2.6.21-rc3, and rebooting just now for the test. I don't think its the >scheduler itself, but is something post 2.6.20 that is messing with tars >mind and making it think the files it just read to do the estimate > phase, are all new, so even a level 2 is in effect a level 0. I'll > have an answer in about an hour, but its also 2:36am here and I'm > headed for the rack to get some zzz's. So I'll report in the morning > as to whether or not this backup ran as it was supposed to. I have a > feeling its not going to though.
I can confirm that a plain 21-rc3 still suffers from this problem. This run of amanda terminated after 13 of the 32 dle's after writing just short of 12GB to the vtape. 8 were level 0's, 5 were level 1's, all were gzipped, achieving a compression ratio of 40% of original size. There is about 45GB of data here to backup, on a 5 day dumpcycle. If, and I have previously, I revert to a 2.6.20-ck1 patching, this does not occur. So my contention is that someplace in this recent progression from 2.6.20 to 2.6.21-rc3, there is a patch which acts to change how c-time is being reported to tar. Or there is a spillage into c-times when tar does its estimate scans where the output goes to /dev/null. Or possibly even this version of tar is doing it differently. I just looked up how to get the c-times out of ls, and they, as far as ls is concerned, look sane. But tars actions while running a 2.6.21-rcX kernel certainly are not. I do have a plain -rc2 I can try, so that will be the next test. If that also fails in this manner, I'll build a later 2.6.20-2 or whatever to verify that it doesn't so suffer. I love your patches Con, but I'll leave them out of this next testing. No use pointing fingers at good code. -- 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) Mal: "Well, you were right about this being a bad idea." Zoe: "Thanks for sayin', sir." --Episode #1, "Serenity" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/