From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751878AbXDAGy0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 02:54:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752063AbXDAGy0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 02:54:26 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:49562 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751878AbXDAGyZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 02:54:25 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 08:51:01 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Gene Heskett Cc: amanda-hackers@amanda.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amanda-users@amanda.org, Andrew Morton , Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: plain 2.6.21-rc5 (1) vs amanda (0) Message-ID: <20070401065101.GA17729@elte.hu> References: <200704010100.19016.gene.heskett@verizon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200704010100.19016.gene.heskett@verizon.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Gene Heskett wrote: > Hi Ingo; > > Running 2.6.21-rc5 tonight. > > It appears that as of 2.6.21-rc5, (actually anything with a 2.6.21 in > its version string) amanda is still a loser. [...] here 'is a loser' means: "tries to back up way too much stuff instead of doing a nice incremental backup like it does on 2.6.20.4", correct? since it appears to be caused by a kernel change, this is a serious regression in v2.6.21-to-be. > Good, 2.6.20.4 was running > sendsize.20070331000507.debug:sendsize[762]: time 248.361: getting size via gnutar for /usr/music level 0 > sendsize.20070331000507.debug:sendsize[762]: estimate time for /usr/music level 0: 1.239 > sendsize.20070331000507.debug:sendsize[762]: estimate size for /usr/music level 0: 2466050 KB > sendsize.20070331000507.debug:sendsize[762]: time 249.605: getting size via gnutar for /usr/music level 1 > sendsize.20070331000507.debug:sendsize[762]: estimate time for /usr/music level 1: 0.027 > sendsize.20070331000507.debug:sendsize[762]: estimate size for /usr/music level 1: 80 KB > > Bad, 2.6.21-rc5 is running > sendsize.20070401000504.debug:sendsize[18465]: time 167.371: getting size via gnutar for /usr/music level 0 > sendsize.20070401000504.debug:sendsize[18465]: estimate time for /usr/music level 0: 0.398 > sendsize.20070401000504.debug:sendsize[18465]: estimate size for /usr/music level 0: 2466050 KB > sendsize.20070401000504.debug:sendsize[18465]: time 167.773: getting size via gnutar for /usr/music level 1 > sendsize.20070401000504.debug:sendsize[18465]: estimate time for /usr/music level 1: 0.049 > sendsize.20070401000504.debug:sendsize[18465]: estimate size for /usr/music level 1: 2448290 KB > > Yesterdays run, dated 20070331000507 were correct as that directory > hasn't been write accessed in a couple of months. > > Today's, dated 20070401000504, shows totally bogus figures for exactly > the same data. 'totally bogus figures' needs to be analyzed further. What system call or library calls returns incorrect data? > This effect I have isolated down to something in the 31 patches from > 2.6.20.4 to 2.6.20.5-rc1, but I'm going to need additional guidance in > setting up the bisect to find it. If indeed its a kernel problem. > > This same effect has been present in any and every 2.6.21.* release. maybe it's some sort of timestamp problem, on the FS level? Ingo