Re: [Dump-devel] Results of sparc patch / too much testing...

[Stelian P. <po...@cy...>]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Rob Cermak wrote:

> Patch applied : success
> Compiled on RH 6.1 (sparc)/e2fsprogs-devel-1.17-1 : success
> 
> Linux to Linux:
> Dumped from sparc to tape, restore using sparc : ok
> Restored sparc dump to x86 : ok!
> Dumped from x86 to tape, restore using x86 : ok
> Restored x86 dump to sparc : ok!
>

Ok, so this is ready for the release! Thanks again for all those testings.
(but, if I believe what I read, you do like testing :) ).
 
> Based on the above and what I did below it looks like the Solaris
> ufsdump and ufsrestore are suspect.  You can move text around, but
> heaven hold your binaries :)

Well, my problem is that I have no "reference" BSD test dumps (and
I don't have a *BSD system, unless I decinde to install one to play 
with...).

So I can make no guarantee if linux dump format is really 100% compatible
with the BSD one... Some users did use that feature, and they were
reporting success, so I guess I'll have to trust them.

As for the Solaris ufsdump, I don't even know if it's the same as
FreeBSD one (although it should be...). So I don't see how we can
tell if the Solaris dump is buggy (or behaving differently), or if
the Linux dump is not correct. Both seems to do almost the same thing,
but in order to find which one is the bad guy, we will need to test
both of them with a reference FreeBSD dump.

Anyone in the audience have a Free/Net/OpenBSD machine ? 

Anyway, tomorrow at work I'll try more in detail the HP/UX dump,
which seemed to me to be compatible with the Linux version (but I
didn't check the integrity of the binary data).

In an optimal world, all dumps and restores would be compatible,
but maybe this is too utopic after all.

> But the SparcLinux works like a champ -- glad to be of some help in my
> limited capacity.   I'll await a new release and whip up the Sparc rpms.

Please do. 

>     The executable was not in the same state...  Gotta watch how your
>     molecules get scattered using the Enterprise transporters!
> 
> I thought it was kinda cute in that I've never seen that message before.

To boldly go when no one has gone before... Maybe the restore process was
disrupted by a tachyon beam or something. O'Brian should be more careful
in the future :)

> Doing a binary compare (cmp), it dies on byte 12289.
> [root@njlug pkgs]# cmp ls /bin/ls
> ls /bin/ls differ: char 12289, line 25

What is amazing is that text files works, and a binary file get corrupted 
only after 12000 bytes! If it had not worked at all, it would be
much simpler :)

> The Solaris box almost ran the SparcLinux dump executable (just testing
> out of curiousity) -- it ended up looking for the linux loader...

You really like to do strange things... :)

> NOTE: I don't expect x86 or sparc linux executables to run on Solaris.

I was wondering... :)


-- 
    /\ 
   /  \     Stelian Pop
  / DS \                        Email: po...@cy...
  \____/