From owner-freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 4 09:51:46 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE7637B401 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from matou.sibbald.com (matou.sibbald.com [195.202.201.48]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B9B43FA3 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:51:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kern@sibbald.com) Received: from [192.168.68.112] (rufus [192.168.68.112]) by matou.sibbald.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54GoOv15165; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:50:25 +0200 From: Kern Sibbald To: mjacob@feral.com In-Reply-To: <20030604074943.E98367@wonky.in0.lcl> References: <3EDB31AB.16420.C8964B7D@localhost> <3EDB59A4.27599.C93270FB@localhost> <20030602110836.H71034@beppo> <20030602131225.F71034@beppo> <1054645616.13630.161.camel@rufus> <3490610000.1054651919@aslan.scsiguy.com> <20030603084701.U24586@wonky.in0.lcl> <20030603103611.R24586@wonky.in0.lcl> <20030604074943.E98367@wonky.in0.lcl> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1054745424.13606.524.camel@rufus> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 04 Jun 2003 18:50:24 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCSI tape data loss X-BeenThere: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: SCSI subsystem List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:51:46 -0000 Sorry, I didn't mean to create a ruckus -- I just don't like data loss -- especially in "Bacula". :-) What I wrote in the other mail was more or less a core dump. When things calm down (and hopefully I get to the bottom of this), I'm going to try to point out the things that could *possibly* be changed without creating chaos with existing programs. Some things like not specifying a large enough buffer and getting an error (on FreeBSD) are preferable to Linux just returning part of the buffer -- but it is a difference worth knowing about. On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 16:51, Matthew Jacob wrote: > Yes, well, I have not been able to myself reproduce it. > > Some of the issues you brought up in the other mail have been worth all > this ruckus in any case. > > I'll be OOT from thu-wed so I may not respond quickly or get to looking > at bacula myself. I did leave a couple tape drives hooked up to one of > my 4.8 boxes so I can fool around with stuff remotely if I get a chance. > > > Hello, > > > > The latest tests indicate that the sequence that I > > gave you below does work. I'm going to look more > > carefully at the Bacula code (the code path is > > fairly complicated) because perhaps it simply > > releases the drive without doing a rewind. > > > > I'm going to also work on simplifying the case > > that we know fails (and it seems to be perfectly > > reproducible). > >