Tristan Rhodes wrote:
> Denis,
>
Hello Tristan,
> I have been unable to duplicate the error with "dar -t". I will keep you informed if it shows up again.
>
sure, no problem.
>
>>dar 2.1.0_pre5 is quite the same as release 2.1.0. If you have the
>>opportunity, try the released version, but, that should not change the
>>problem, I guess.
>
>
> I have just updated to release 2.1.0 and all tests results are from this version. After we resolve this issue, I am going to switch to the 64-bit version of DAR. I just read in LIMITATIONS about the extra memory that is used with the infinite version. Since I usually back up an entire drive, the 64-bit version should use significantly less memory (Dar uses up to 82 MB on full-system backups). Is this correct? I do not think I will be limited by the 18,446,744,073 GB limitation. (Is there any system in the world that uses anything close to this much space?)
>
that's correct, 64 and 32 bits version use less memory to store each
file in the catalogue (stored in memory while creating the archive).
18 TB is a bit far from what I have heard of today's usual total system
disk, but, if you have a look at the "Hall of Fame" on dar's web site,
you will see that already we have 1.4 TB archives... that's exceptional
for today, but in 2 years, the exceptional archives will be probably
around 14 TB, maybe more, and un ten days, maybe 18TB will be a common
limitation for a normal system .... that's a matter of time. But at that
time 128 bits integer will be standard on all system, and I will just
have to add a new #define in the code to have the 128 bits mode in
libdar... currently, I cannot, as I could not find a standard and
portable C/C++ type that defines a 128 bits integer... that's also a
matter of time. In the meanwhile for those that want to do exceptional
things, there is still the native dar version (using infinint) which is
a bit more fond of memory (but exceptional guys have exceptional memory
too ;-) ) and which has no such limitation.
>
>>large file support is set in dar, but there is also the kernel, and
>>standard libraries to have ready to support largefiles. What is your
>>Linux kernel version ("uname -a" should tell you) ?
>
>
> linux:~/sarab/sarab-0.1.0 # uname -a
> Linux linux 2.4.20-4GB #1 Wed Aug 6 18:26:21 UTC 2003 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux
that's correct, only kernel 2.0.x and bellow have a 2GB limitation in
ext2fs.
>
>
>>can you try to create a large file with another tool than dar (using dd
>>for example : "dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/sample.dat bs=1048576 count=3072"
>>should make a 3GB file in /tmp/sample.dat )
>
>
> linux:~/sarab/sarab-0.1.0 # dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/sample.dat bs=1048576 count=6144
> 6144+0 records in
> 6144+0 records out
> linux:~/sarab/sarab-0.1.0 # ls -l /tmp/sample.dat
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6442450944 Feb 21 14:12 /tmp/sample.dat
>
> It doesn't look like a filesystem limitation, I was able to create a 6 GB file.
>
good,
>
>>Cheers,
>>Denis.
>
>
> Thanks for your great progam, Denis.
you are welcome,
>
> Tristan Rhodes
>
Denis.
>
|