Re: dump(8) is hosed

2002-07-07 Thread Bruce Evans
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Don Lewis wrote: > On 7 Jul, Ian Dowse wrote: > > Thanks for tracking this down! One thing is that the code was using > > the static pointers to avoid having to malloc and free blocks every > > time. Keeping an array of NIADDR pointers and using `ind_level' as > > the index i

Re: dump(8) is hosed

2002-07-07 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Ian Dowse wrote: > I'll commit your printf format changes first anyway - thanks! Just to make sure, you're not going to fix the problem dump problem; just fix the bad screen output. Correct? Since I've got a very reproduceable test case; I wanted to tes

Re: dump(8) is hosed

2002-07-07 Thread dirkx
On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Don Lewis wrote: > > For me it is broken in a different way. For a small FS like / it works, > > but dumping my /home, which is 4G, I get > > > > DUMP: read error from /dev/ad0s5e: Invalid argument: [sector -1054739789]: >count=-1 > > DUMP: read error from /dev/ad0

Re: dump(8) is hosed

2002-07-07 Thread Don Lewis
On 7 Jul, Ian Dowse wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Lewis writes: >> >>I was finally finally able to reproduce this by creating a large file >>before doing the dump. Dump(8) is *very* hosed. The UFS2 import broke >>it's ability to follow multiple levels of indirect blocks. > > Tha

Re: dump(8) is hosed

2002-07-07 Thread Ian Dowse
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Lewis writes: > >I was finally finally able to reproduce this by creating a large file >before doing the dump. Dump(8) is *very* hosed. The UFS2 import broke >it's ability to follow multiple levels of indirect blocks. Thanks for tracking this down! One thing

Re: dump(8) is hosed

2002-07-06 Thread Don Lewis
On 5 Jul, Georg-W. Koltermann wrote: > Am Mi, 2002-07-03 um 17.31 schrieb David O'Brien: >> On a 27-June-2002 23:02:00 UTC system (just before ipfw2 went in, >> pre-KSE3), dump will not complete dumping more than 5GB. At that point >> it stops responding properly to ^T, which should give "DUMP:

Re: dump(8) is hosed

2002-07-06 Thread Don Lewis
On 5 Jul, Georg-W. Koltermann wrote: > Am Mi, 2002-07-03 um 17.31 schrieb David O'Brien: >> On a 27-June-2002 23:02:00 UTC system (just before ipfw2 went in, >> pre-KSE3), dump will not complete dumping more than 5GB. At that point >> it stops responding properly to ^T, which should give "DUMP:

Re: dump(8) is hosed

2002-07-05 Thread David O'Brien
On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 06:48:56PM +0200, Georg-W. Koltermann wrote: > Am Mi, 2002-07-03 um 17.31 schrieb David O'Brien: > > On a 27-June-2002 23:02:00 UTC system (just before ipfw2 went in, > > pre-KSE3), dump will not complete dumping more than 5GB. At that point > > it stops responding properl

Re: dump(8) is hosed

2002-07-05 Thread Georg-W. Koltermann
Am Mi, 2002-07-03 um 17.31 schrieb David O'Brien: > On a 27-June-2002 23:02:00 UTC system (just before ipfw2 went in, > pre-KSE3), dump will not complete dumping more than 5GB. At that point > it stops responding properly to ^T, which should give "DUMP: 47.52% done, > finished in 1:19". At the 5

dump(8) is hosed

2002-07-03 Thread David O'Brien
On a 27-June-2002 23:02:00 UTC system (just before ipfw2 went in, pre-KSE3), dump will not complete dumping more than 5GB. At that point it stops responding properly to ^T, which should give "DUMP: 47.52% done, finished in 1:19". At the 5GB mark, ^T gives: load: 0.00 cmd: dump 3981 [physst