Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 08:44:01 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Recent changes to `dump' Message-ID: <199511290744.IAA14116@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <9511281946.AA04068@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett A. Wollman" at Nov 28, 95 02:46:00 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Garrett A. Wollman wrote:
>
> I noticed that my backups stopped working over Thanksgiving break.
> The cause turned out to be that the format of `dump''s informational
> messages has changed to add the qualifier `tape ' in front of
> references to `blocks'. Given the fact that almost everyone who does
> any sort of large-scale backups has written lots of wrapper scripts
> which attempt to parse the output of `dump', I think this format
> change is inadvisable, and I intend to reverse it unless someone
> speaks up with a good reason to keep the superfluous verbiage.
It has not added a qualifier. Here's the diff:
Index: main.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/src/sbin/dump/main.c,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5
--- main.c 1995/10/24 13:46:35 1.4
+++ main.c 1995/11/18 18:00:42 1.5
@@ -440,14 +448,24 @@
(void)dumpino(dp, ino);
}
+ (void)time((time_t *)&(tend_writing));
spcl.c_type = TS_END;
for (i = 0; i < ntrec; i++)
writeheader(maxino - 1);
if (pipeout)
- msg("DUMP: %ld tape blocks\n",spcl.c_tapea);
+ msg("%ld tape blocks\n", spcl.c_tapea);
else
- msg("DUMP: %ld tape blocks on %d volumes(s)\n",
+ msg("%ld tape blocks on %d volumes(s)\n",
spcl.c_tapea, spcl.c_volume);
+
+ /* report dump performance, avoid division through zero */
+ if (tend_writing - tstart_writing == 0)
+ msg("finished in less than a second\n");
+ else
+ msg("finished in %d seconds, throughput %d KBytes/sec\n",
+ tend_writing - tstart_writing,
+ spcl.c_tapea / (tend_writing - tstart_writing));
+
putdumptime();
trewind();
broadcast("DUMP IS DONE!\7\7\n");
It has added a new message (which does neither contain the words
`tape' or `blocks'), and i've removed a superfluous `DUMP:' in front
of the `tape blocks' line. The output was previously looking like:
...
DUMP: estimated 4835 tape blocks on 0.12 tape(s).
DUMP: dumping (Pass III) [directories]
DUMP: dumping (Pass IV) [regular files]
DUMP: DUMP: 4827 tape blocks on 1 volumes(s)
...
...and now looks like:
...
DUMP: estimated 4835 tape blocks on 0.12 tape(s).
DUMP: dumping (Pass III) [directories]
DUMP: dumping (Pass IV) [regular files]
DUMP: 4827 tape blocks on 1 volumes(s)
DUMP: finished in 10 seconds, throughput 482 KBytes/sec
...
If you really think that omitting the additional (and apparently
accidental) ``DUMP:'' does confuse the world, so remove _just this_,
instead of shooting around and removing everything from this patch.
Remember, there was a general consensus to _include_ the `throughput'
line.
What does amanda say to the new dump?
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511290744.IAA14116>