Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Paddy Sreenivasan]

RPMs and source tar ball are available for following platforms at
http://www.zmanda.com/downloads.html

- Red Hat Enterprise server 4,
- Red Hat Enterprise server 3
- Suse Linux Enterprise 9,
- Suse Linux Enterprise 10,
- Open Suse 10.0,
- Fedora Core 3,
- Fedora Core 4,
- Fedora Core 5 and
- Source RPM

You can find the updated man pages and documentation in http://wiki.zmanda.com/

Thanks,
Paddy

On 9/5/06, Jean-Louis Martineau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 Hello,

 The Amanda core team is pleased to announce the release of Amanda
 2.5.1.   It is a significant milestone in Amanda project.

 Source tar ball can be downloaded from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/amanda
 or http://www.amanda.org

 If you find bugs or have feature requests, please submit a bug report on
 sourceforge in the group v2.5.1.

 If you successfully use 2.5.1,  please post your success reports to
 http://forums.zmanda.com.

 For list of 2.5.1 features and changes and documentation, see
 http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/2.5.1_features

 The list of new features in 2.5.1 beta releases:


Defects found by Coverity scan and Klocwork K7 analysis tools fixed.
Works with GNU tar 1.15.91 - work with new gtar state file format.
Open SSL encryption support
Two new authentication methods: bsdtcp, bsdudp.
Unlimited number of DLEs on a client with bsdtcp, rsh and ssh authentication
methods.
Recovery process amrecover uses Secure API. amoldrecover command (same
syntax and functionality as amrecover command) is provided for compatibility
with old Amanda releases. amoldrecover command uses old amidxtaped/amindexd
protocol.
Amanda debug files are separated into client/server/amandad and are also
classified based on Amanda configuration name.
Amanda command changes

amfetchdump -o is replaced by -O.
amcheck -w option does all tests including the tape writable test. Use
amcheck -t -w to do only the tape writable test.
-o command option to override Amanda configuration. Seeamanda man page for
details.
amgetconf command doesn't write the BUGGY message when aentry is not found
in the configuration file.
Amanda configuration file changes

amanda.conf changes:

amrecover_do_fsf in amanda.conf defaults to yes
amrecover_check_label in amanda.conf defaults to yes
usetimestamps in amanda.conf to support multiple backup runs in a calendar
day.
holdingdisk in amanda.conf supports new values: NEVER, AUTO, REQUIRED.
amandad_path, client_username and ssh_keys in amanda.conf for ssh/rsh
authentication.
New amanda client configuration file - amanda-client.conf. Different client
configuration file can be used for each Amanda configuration.

gnutar_list-dir and amandates can be specified in Amanda client
configuration file - amanda-client.conf
.amandahosts format changes to allow use of secure API for recovery.
Amanda service entries in xinetd configuration has changed.



--

Amanda documentation: http://wiki.zmanda.com
Amanda forums: http://forums.zmanda.com

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Josef Wolf]

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?

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

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.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

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!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 20 September 2006 05:56, 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!
>
>Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>  Geert
>
Good Grief Charley Brown!

Tar is supposed to be a stable, mature utility is it not?  I mean its what, 
30 years old, existing in the various *nix's long before gnu took over?  
Whyinhell can't the folks over at gnu.org find something else to screw 
with besides tar?  It doesn't _need_ to be on their WPA or CCC lists as a 
makework project when there's nothing else to do around the office.

According to 

the --one-file-system option still exists, but must be spelled out as shown 
here.  The -l option now checks hard links.

So amanda CAN be fixed, but is tars option buffer big enough to do the job 
when we have to spell every option out in order to protect us from such 
future actions?

I feel rather strongly about this, so [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been added to the 
Cc: 
list.  They need to know how the users feel about such shennanigans.

I wasn't able to find the docs for 1.15-1 on their site, so I have no idea 
if this might explain the rash of small estimates I'm getting that 
occasionally overrun my nominally 8GB vtape size by as much as 1.5GB!

Question for the gnu folks: can you please tell us when this "-l" option 
was actually changed to be the hardlink checking function from the 
formerly used shorthand for the --one-file-system option?

I'm tempted to recompile my amanda to use the 1.13-25 version that also 
exists on my system and see if this small estimate problem goes away.  I'd 
do that right now, except it seems I must have finally, after a year of 
running 1.15-1, deleted the older version.  Searching local repos..  Ok, 
this version of 1.13-25 is now installed and will be used by amanda 
tonight: 

tar-1.13.25-14.1.legacy.i386.rpm

I have a suspicion this MAY be the broken 1.14, with RH fixes since fedora 
doesn't ever advance to the next major version of anything...  Spoils the 
image of wanting everyone to do a fresh install to get the latest.  We're 
the guinea pigs and test monkeys of the development lab you know. Grrr.

Stay tuned for any noticeable diffs in the next few runs, which I'll 
report.  If it fubars, then I have an rpm of the real 1.13-25 here too...

>--
>Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>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

Thanks for the heads-up Geert.  Unforch, its seems gnu.org had hidden all 
previous versions of tar on a hard to find subpage, but versions back to 
1.14 can yet be had there.  And we ALL know about that one.  What we do 
know isn't printable for mixed company though. :(

Thanks.

-- 
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.

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 05:56, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Josef Wolf wrote:
> >> 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!
> 
> Tar is supposed to be a stable, mature utility is it not?  I mean its what, 
> 30 years old, existing in the various *nix's long before gnu took over?  
> Whyinhell can't the folks over at gnu.org find something else to screw 
> with besides tar?  It doesn't _need_ to be on their WPA or CCC lists as a 
> makework project when there's nothing else to do around the office.
> 
> According to 
> 
> the --one-file-system option still exists, but must be spelled out as shown 
> here.  The -l option now checks hard links.
> 
> So amanda CAN be fixed, but is tars option buffer big enough to do the job 
> when we have to spell every option out in order to protect us from such 
> future actions?
> 
> I feel rather strongly about this, so [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been added to the 
> Cc: 
> list.  They need to know how the users feel about such shennanigans.
> 
> I wasn't able to find the docs for 1.15-1 on their site, so I have no idea 
> if this might explain the rash of small estimates I'm getting that 
> occasionally overrun my nominally 8GB vtape size by as much as 1.5GB!
> 
> Question for the gnu folks: can you please tell us when this "-l" option 
> was actually changed to be the hardlink checking function from the 
> formerly used shorthand for the --one-file-system option?

tar-1.15.91/NEWS states:

| version 1.15.91 - Sergey Poznyakoff, (CVS version)
| 
| * Incompatible changes
| 
| ** Short option -l is now an alias of --check-links option, which complies
| with UNIX98.  This ends the transition period started with version 1.14.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 20 September 2006 10:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 05:56, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Josef Wolf wrote:
>> >> 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!
>>
>> Tar is supposed to be a stable, mature utility is it not?  I mean its
>> what, 30 years old, existing in the various *nix's long before gnu took
>> over? Whyinhell can't the folks over at gnu.org find something else to
>> screw with besides tar?  It doesn't _need_ to be on their WPA or CCC
>> lists as a makework project when there's nothing else to do around the
>> office.
>>
>> According to
>> 
>> the --one-file-system option still exists, but must be spelled out as
>> shown here.  The -l option now checks hard links.
>>
>> So amanda CAN be fixed, but is tars option buffer big enough to do the
>> job when we have to spell every option out in order to protect us from
>> such future actions?
>>
>> I feel rather strongly about this, so [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been added to the
>> Cc: list.  They need to know how the users feel about such
>> shennanigans.
>>
>> I wasn't able to find the docs for 1.15-1 on their site, so I have no
>> idea if this might explain the rash of small estimates I'm getting that
>> occasionally overrun my nominally 8GB vtape size by as much as 1.5GB!
>>
>> Question for the gnu folks: can you please tell us when this "-l"
>> option was actually changed to be the hardlink checking function from
>> the formerly used shorthand for the --one-file-system option?
>
>tar-1.15.91/NEWS states:
>| version 1.15.91 - Sergey Poznyakoff, (CVS version)
>|
>| * Incompatible changes
>|
>| ** Short option -l is now an alias of --check-links option, which
>| complies with UNIX98.  This ends the transition period started with
>| version 1.14.

ArrgGahhCCK!  So this might well explain why I'm under estimating the 
backups so grossly here of late.  If it screws up again, I'll --force the 
older 1.13-25 back in for a few runs.

>Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>  Geert
>
>--
>Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>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.

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 20 September 2006 11:05, Sergey Poznyakoff wrote:
>> > >tar: -l option changed meaning, without any warning!
>
>The change of its meaning was announced at least on 2004-05-11, with the
>release of 1.14.  Three releases are quite sufficient for the users to
>get used to the changes, aren't they?
>
Were these changes suitably relayed to the major users of tar, such as the 
amanda developers?  With the information hiway being 100 lanes wide these 
days, its sorta hard to spot the right little red coupe. :)

>> > I wasn't able to find the docs for 1.15-1 on their site, so I have
>
>Besides being shipped with the tarball, the docs are always available
>from http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/manual.  The planned change in the
>meaning of the -l option was announced there (along with the NEWS file)
>as early as on May 2004.

That didn't seem to want to pop up with a digg search while I was browseing 
your site, sorry.

>> > Question for the gnu folks: can you please tell us when this "-l"
>> > option was actually changed to be the hardlink checking function from
>> > the formerly used shorthand for the --one-file-system option?
>
>The excerpt below describes it in detail.  For even more details,
>you may wish to read the developers discussion at
>
>  http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-tar
>
>> tar-1.15.91/NEWS states:
>> | version 1.15.91 - Sergey Poznyakoff, (CVS version)
>> |
>> | * Incompatible changes
>> |
>> | ** Short option -l is now an alias of --check-links option, which
>> | complies with UNIX98.  This ends the transition period started with
>> | version 1.14.
>
>Groetjes,
>Sergey

Thanks Sergey.  Now we know, and can take evasive action. :)

-- 
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.

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Charles Stroom]

on  Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:33:15 EDT
Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 05:56, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>
> >> 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!
> >
> >Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> >
> >  Geert
> >
> Good Grief Charley Brown!
> 
> Tar is supposed to be a stable, mature utility is it not?  I mean its what, 
> 30 years old, existing in the various *nix's long before gnu took over?  
> Whyinhell can't the folks over at gnu.org find something else to screw 
> with besides tar?  It doesn't _need_ to be on their WPA or CCC lists as a 
> makework project when there's nothing else to do around the office.
> 

On my Suse 10.0 system:

(2): cs> tar --version
tar (GNU tar) 1.15.1
(0): cs> tar -l dum dum
tar: Semantics of -l option will change in the future releases.
tar: Please use --one-file-system option instead.

So, at least there were warnings (not really an excuse I think)

Regards,

Charles

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Paul Bijnens]

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.)



--
Paul Bijnens, xplanation Technology ServicesTel  +32 16 397.511
Technologielaan 21 bus 2, B-3001 Leuven, BELGIUMFax  +32 16 397.512
http://www.xplanation.com/  email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
* I think I've got the hang of it now:  exit, ^D, ^C, ^\, ^Z, ^Q, ^^, *
* F6, quit, ZZ, :q, :q!, M-Z, ^X^C, logoff, logout, close, bye, /bye, *
* stop, end, F3, ~., ^]c, +++ ATH, disconnect, halt,  abort,  hangup, *
* PF4, F20, ^X^X, :D::D, KJOB, F14-f-e, F8-e,  kill -1 $$,  shutdown, *
* init 0, kill -9 1, Alt-F4, Ctrl-Alt-Del, AltGr-NumLock, Stop-A, ... *
* ...  "Are you sure?"  ...   YES   ...   Phew ...   I'm out  *
***

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Steve Newcomb]

> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=384508
> > tar: -l option changed meaning, without any warning!

I've been on this list for only a few hours, and it has already solved
a baffling and annoying mystery for me.  I have been using tar for at
least 20 years and I would never have expected something this
important to change so radically and so silently.  My scripts haven't
complained; they've just started producing files that are *almost*
right.  Ugh.

Well, it just goes to show you: even though our friends in Gnu-land
focus relentlessly on protecting productivity, they are not perfect.
It's comforting, kind-of.

-- Steve

Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
Coolheads Consulting

Co-editor, Topic Maps International Standard (ISO/IEC 13250)
Co-editor, draft Topic Maps -- Reference Model (ISO/IEC 13250-5)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.coolheads.com

direct: +1 540 951 9773
main:   +1 540 951 9774
fax:+1 540 951 9775

208 Highview Drive
Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 USA


(Confidential to all US government personnel to whom this private
letter is not addressed and who are reading it in the absence of a
specific search warrant: You are violating the law and you are
co-conspiring to subvert the Constitution that you are sworn to
defend.  You can either refuse to commit this crime, or you can expect
to suffer criminal sanctions in the future, when the current
administration of the United States of America has been replaced by
one that respects the rule of law.  I do not envy you for having to
make this difficult choice, but I urge you to make it wisely.)

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

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)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

RE: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[McGraw, Robert P.]

FYIW

I am running gnu tar 1.15.1 on my solaris hosts and it does not show a "-l"
parameter. I did tar --help | grep "\-l".

>From the --help I have the following:

  --check-links  print a message if not all links are dumped

On a RH X86_64 system I have gnu tar 1.14 and it shows 

-l, --one-file-systemstay in local file system when creating archive

Robert



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Charles Stroom
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:25 PM
> To: amanda-users@amanda.org
> Subject: Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1
> 
> 
> on  Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:33:15 EDT
> Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 20 September 2006 05:56, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > >On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 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!
> > >
> > >Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> > >
> > >  Geert
> > >
> > Good Grief Charley Brown!
> >
> > Tar is supposed to be a stable, mature utility is it not?  I mean its
> what,
> > 30 years old, existing in the various *nix's long before gnu took over?
> > Whyinhell can't the folks over at gnu.org find something else to screw
> > with besides tar?  It doesn't _need_ to be on their WPA or CCC lists as
> a
> > makework project when there's nothing else to do around the office.
> >
> 
> On my Suse 10.0 system:
> 
> (2): cs> tar --version
> tar (GNU tar) 1.15.1
> (0): cs> tar -l dum dum
> tar: Semantics of -l option will change in the future releases.
> tar: Please use --one-file-system option instead.
> 
> So, at least there were warnings (not really an excuse I think)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Charles
> 
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

RE: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, McGraw, Robert P. wrote:
> I am running gnu tar 1.15.1 on my solaris hosts and it does not show a "-l"
> parameter. I did tar --help | grep "\-l".
> 
> >From the --help I have the following:
> 
>   --check-links  print a message if not all links are dumped
> 
> On a RH X86_64 system I have gnu tar 1.14 and it shows 
> 
> -l, --one-file-systemstay in local file system when creating archive

`-l' wasn't recycled before 1.15.91, according to the changelog.

On a Debian testing box:

| tux$ tar --version
| tar (GNU tar) 1.15.91
| Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
| This is free software.  You may redistribute copies of it under the terms of
| the GNU General Public License <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>.
| There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
| 
| Written by John Gilmore and Jay Fenlason.
| tux$ tar --help | grep -- -l
|   -t, --list list the contents of an archive
|   --test-label   test the archive volume label and exit
|   -g, --listed-incremental=FILE   handle new GNU-format incremental backup
|  --diff, --extract or --list and when a list of
|   --force-local  archive file is local even if it has a colon
|   -L, --tape-length=NUMBER   change tape after writing NUMBER x 1024 bytes
|   -V, --label=TEXT   create archive with volume name TEXT; at
|   -l, --check-links  print a message if not all links are dumped
| tux$

> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of Charles Stroom
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:25 PM
> > To: amanda-users@amanda.org
> > Subject: Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1
> > 
> > 
> > on  Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:33:15 EDT
> > Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 20 September 2006 05:56, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> 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!
> > > >
> > > >Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> > > >
> > > >  Geert
> > > >
> > > Good Grief Charley Brown!
> > >
> > > Tar is supposed to be a stable, mature utility is it not?  I mean its
> > what,
> > > 30 years old, existing in the various *nix's long before gnu took over?
> > > Whyinhell can't the folks over at gnu.org find something else to screw
> > > with besides tar?  It doesn't _need_ to be on their WPA or CCC lists as
> > a
> > > makework project when there's nothing else to do around the office.
> > >
> > 
> > On my Suse 10.0 system:
> > 
> > (2): cs> tar --version
> > tar (GNU tar) 1.15.1
> > (0): cs> tar -l dum dum
> > tar: Semantics of -l option will change in the future releases.
> > tar: Please use --one-file-system option instead.
> > 
> > So, at least there were warnings (not really an excuse I think)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Gene Heskett]

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.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# su amanda -c "amadmin Daily balance"

 due-date  #fsorig MB out MB   balance
--
 9/21 Thu   13 8926 5433 +4.0%
 9/22 Fri5 5404 4727 -9.5%
 9/23 Sat   21 6306 3489-33.2%
 9/24 Sun6 10284 4659-10.8%
 9/25 Mon4 13862 7824+49.7%
--
TOTAL   49 44782 26132 5226
DISTINCT45 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 --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>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.

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

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
  2. Backups being way too large, as tar escaped from the file system it was
 backing up.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Re: Release of amanda-2.5.1

[Gene Heskett]

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 --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>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.