On Monday 21 August 2006 13:42, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote:
> David,
>
> Could you try the attached patch? It should fix the driver crash.
Thanks! Think it has indeed fixed it: Have only managed to test one combo
(still got the performance+indexing issue, of course), but
a run with DLEs 2/2 :: w
David,
Could you try the attached patch?
It should fix the driver crash.
Jean-Louis
David Golden wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 16:18, David Golden wrote:
so switched nearly-2.5.1 to vanilla "bsd" with holding disk in order to
try another test with nearly-2.5.1 to try to eliminate tha
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 16:18, David Golden wrote:
> so switched nearly-2.5.1 to vanilla "bsd" with holding disk in order to
> try another test with nearly-2.5.1 to try to eliminate that as the issue...
> but I can't! Bigger Problems:
> Amanda "driver" process just upped and dumped core - gues
On 2006-08-02 10:31:43 -0700, Paddy Sreenivasan wrote:
> Can you please clarify what you mean by "nearly-2.5.1". Is it 2.5.1b2
> or 2.5.1b1? There are lots of memory issues fixed using valgrind
> and other tools in 2.5.1b2 release.
>
2.5.1b2 (and CVS HEAD from yesterday morning) exhibit the pr
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 13:31, Paddy Sreenivasan wrote:
>On 8/2/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2006-08-01 13:00:05 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>> > Not certain from your note, is this a first installation and you
>> > are getting poor performance or are you comparing your resul
On 8/2/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-08-01 13:00:05 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>
> Not certain from your note, is this a first installation and you
> are getting poor performance or are you comparing your results
> to those obtained before "upgrading" to the bleeding edge.
>
On 2006-08-01 13:00:05 -0400, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>
> Not certain from your note, is this a first installation and you
> are getting poor performance or are you comparing your results
> to those obtained before "upgrading" to the bleeding edge.
>
Sorry, my fault. Was previously running with 2.4.x
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:31:22PM +0100, David Golden wrote:
> As the new security infrastructure seems nice, and as amanda 2.5.x now
> pretty much builds on OpenBSD/amd64, I decided to try the bleeding edge.
>
Not certain from your note, is this a first installation and you
are getting poor pe
As the new security infrastructure seems nice, and as amanda 2.5.x now
pretty much builds on OpenBSD/amd64, I decided to try the bleeding edge.
But I'm getting rather poor performance on local dumps of the server (dump,
no holding disk used, no compression), like 200x slower than it should be.
I
