640.0 GB symlink

640.0 GB symlink

[Jason Mancini]

$ tar czvlf root.tgz /
...
tar: memory exhaused

Hmmm.  The short story, tar dies on libz.so symlink.

$ ls -l /usr/lib/libz.*

-rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root        72302 Jun  7 06:33 /usr/lib/libz.a*
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root 687194767373 Jun  9 16:36 /usr/lib/libz.so -> 
libz.so.1.1.4*
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root           23 Jun  9 16:36 
/usr/lib/libz.so.1.1.4 -> ../../lib/libz.so.1.1.4*

$ ls -l ../../lib/libz.*

lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root           13 Jun  9 16:36 ../../lib/libz.so.1 
-> libz.so.1.1.4*
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root        57584 Jun  7 06:33 
../../lib/libz.so.1.1.4*

I rebooted with init=/bin/bash
"reiserfsck --check /dev/hda1" revealed no errors.

Mandrake kernel 2.4.19-19mdk.
reiserfsprogs-3.6.3-1mdk

Should I just erase and remake the symlink?
It wasn't like this in July (my last backup, *cough*).

In the mean time, I will use tar's --exclude option...

Thanks,
Jason Mancini
<jayrusman@hotmail.com>


_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Re: 640.0 GB symlink

[Jason Mancini]

I also tried reiserfsprogs 3.6.4, no change.
BTW, 687194767373 = 640GB + 13 bytes.  The
size of the symlink should be 13 bytes, so
somehow bits 00A0 0000 0000 are on...

Jason Mancini


_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Re: 640.0 GB symlink

[Dirk Mueller]

On Die, 03 Dez 2002, Jason Mancini wrote:

> size of the symlink should be 13 bytes, so
> somehow bits 00A0 0000 0000 are on...

sounds like a bad harddrive. run badblocks. 


-- 
Dirk (received 162 mails today)

Re: 640.0 GB symlink

[Oleg Drokin]

Hello!

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:02:38PM -0800, Jason Mancini wrote:

> Should I just erase and remake the symlink?

Yes, that would be the simpliest thing.

> It wasn't like this in July (my last backup, *cough*).

Then somebody corrupted it, or may be even the drive itself.

reiserfsck is generally does not shorten file sizes, but symlink is really
special file, so this will be fixed for next release for sure.
May be we will even include something like that check into the kernel.

Thank you for your report.

Bye,
    Oleg

Re: 640.0 GB symlink

[Jason Mancini]

I had an issue with my RAM settings a couple
months ago (swapped in a new XP processor,
reset the BIOS, and chose 333MHz accidentally
on DDR2100...) so most likely it's from that
little incident.  I redid the symlink and
nothing exploded -- at least yet!  >=]

Thanks for such a great fs,
Jason Mancini



----Original Message Follows----
From: Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>

Hello!

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:02:38PM -0800, Jason Mancini wrote:

 > Should I just erase and remake the symlink?

Yes, that would be the simpliest thing.

 > It wasn't like this in July (my last backup, *cough*).

Then somebody corrupted it, or may be even the drive itself.

reiserfsck is generally does not shorten file sizes, but symlink is really
special file, so this will be fixed for next release for sure.
May be we will even include something like that check into the kernel.

Thank you for your report.

Bye,
     Oleg


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail