Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:15:47 -0400 From: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com> Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: SCSI tape data loss Message-ID: <3F4CBD13.545.1FF6190E@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20030827110534.J31798@root.org> References: <1061995529.1258.273.camel@rufus>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27 Aug 2003 at 11:06, Nate Lawson wrote: > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > Many thanks for testing this ... > > > > It seems to me that your tests, clearly indicate that > > there is a problem even though you had no data loss. > > > > When you ran without -pthread, the status > > received by the program was a 0 with 141776 > > blocks written. This is correct. > > > > When you ran with -pthread, the status > > received by the program was a -1 with 142879 > > blocks written. This is "not correct". > > > > To me, that shows very clearly that with -pthread > > the 0 status was lost and more blocks were written. > > In fact, in this case so many blocks were written > > that the tape was not properly terminated with > > an EOF (actually two EOF marks). > > Here is a response I got by forwarding this to the pthreads maintainer: > > A return status of 0 from write is not interpreted as an End-Of-Tape. > > The threads library isn't smart enough to know that the file > > is a tape device and that a 0 status should break it out of the > > loop. Thus, it continues writing. > > > > Use libkse :-) > > > > -- > > Dan Eischen Nate: thanks for getting in touch with him. It is interesting to note that the code works OK on Linux and Solaris. Why is FreeBSD different in this case? Kern: I can't comment on libkse. I don't know it and I don't know what effect it would have on Bacula. -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F4CBD13.545.1FF6190E>