Since the logs indicate an error with the "index tee", I thought I'd try
turning off the index generation. The backup still failed, but with a
different error:

1251826429.341455: sendbackup: pid 26726 ruid 150 euid 150 version
2.6.2alpha: start at Tue Sep  1 11:33:49 2009
1251826429.342070: sendbackup: Version 2.6.2alpha
1251826429.364640: sendbackup: pid 26726 ruid 150 euid 150 version
2.6.2alpha: rename at Tue Sep  1 11:33:49 2009
1251826429.366628: sendbackup:   Parsed request as: program `DUMP'
1251826429.366665: sendbackup:                      disk `/'
1251826429.366690: sendbackup:                      device `/'
1251826429.366714: sendbackup:                      level 0
1251826429.366737: sendbackup:                      since NODATE
1251826429.366761: sendbackup:                      options `'
1251826429.367758: sendbackup: start: zirconium.example.com:/ lev 0
1251826429.369745: sendbackup: dumping device '/dev/rsd1a' with 'ffs'
1251826429.370181: sendbackup: Spawning "/sbin/dump dump 0usf 1048576 -
/dev/rsd1a" in pipeline
1251826429.375384: sendbackup: Started backup
1251826429.395855: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: Date of this level 0
dump: Tue Sep  1 11:33:49 2009
1251826429.460067: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: Date of last level 0
dump: the epoch
1251826429.461111: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: Dumping /dev/rsd1a
(/) to standard output
1251826429.538792: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: mapping (Pass I)
[regular files]
1251826430.811052: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: mapping (Pass II)
[directories]
1251826430.812848: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: estimated 47600 tape
blocks.
1251826430.814960: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: Volume 1 started at:
Tue Sep  1 11:33:50 2009
1251826430.820737: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: dumping (Pass III)
[directories]
1251826430.829936: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: End of tape detected
1251826430.833563: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: Volume 1 completed
at: Tue Sep  1 11:33:50 2009
1251826430.836947: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: Change Volumes:
Mount volume #2
1251826430.838051: sendbackup:  86: strange(?):   DUMP: fopen on /dev/tty
fails: Device not configured
1251826430.839081: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: The ENTIRE dump is
aborted.
1251826430.839642: sendbackup: critical (fatal): error [dump (1011)
/sbin/dump returned 3]

Hope that helps.

-- Michael


On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Michael Burk <[email protected]> wrote:

> I applied the 3-line patch to the 0831 snapshot and ran a full backup on
> both machines, with 4 file systems each. All 8 completed successfully with
> no "strange" messages.
>
> Next, I commented out the 3 new lines and tried the backup again on one of
> the machines. This time all 4 file systems failed; e.g.:
>
> 1251825776.552104: sendbackup: pid 24374 ruid 150 euid 150 version
> 2.6.2alpha: start at Tue Sep  1 11:22:56 2009
> 1251825776.552688: sendbackup: Version 2.6.2alpha
> 1251825776.575326: sendbackup: pid 24374 ruid 150 euid 150 version
> 2.6.2alpha: rename at Tue Sep  1 11:22:56 2009
> 1251825776.577315: sendbackup:   Parsed request as: program `DUMP'
> 1251825776.577352: sendbackup:                      disk `/'
> 1251825776.577377: sendbackup:                      device `/'
> 1251825776.577400: sendbackup:                      level 0
> 1251825776.577424: sendbackup:                      since NODATE
> 1251825776.577446: sendbackup:                      options `'
> 1251825776.578210: sendbackup: start: zirconium.example.com:/ lev 0
> 1251825776.579426: sendbackup: dumping device '/dev/rsd1a' with 'ffs'
> 1251825776.582918: sendbackup: Spawning "/sbin/dump dump 0usf 1048576 -
> /dev/rsd1a" in pipeline
> 1251825776.587089: sendbackup: Started backup
> 1251825776.619734: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: Date of this level
> 0 dump: Tue Sep  1 11:22:56 2009
> 1251825776.632529: sendbackup: Started index creator: "/sbin/restore -tvf -
> 2>&1 | sed -e '
> s/^leaf[        ]*[0-9]*[       ]*\.//
> t
> /^dir[  ]/ {
> s/^dir[         ]*[0-9]*[       ]*\.//
> s%$%/%
> t
> }
> d
> '"
> 1251825776.721646: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: Date of last level
> 0 dump: the epoch
> 1251825776.722686: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: Dumping /dev/rsd1a
> (/) to standard output
> 1251825776.779507: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: mapping (Pass I)
> [regular files]
> 1251825778.010107: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: mapping (Pass II)
> [directories]
> 1251825778.012085: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: estimated 47600
> tape blocks.
> 1251825778.013367: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: Volume 1 started
> at: Tue Sep  1 11:22:58 2009
> 1251825778.020808: sendbackup: critical (fatal): index tee cannot write
> [Resource temporarily unavailable]
> 1251825778.020918: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: dumping (Pass III)
> [directories]
> 1251825778.022805: sendbackup: 115: strange(?): sendbackup: index tee
> cannot write [Resource temporarily unavailable]
> 1251825778.042344: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: Broken pipe
> 1251825778.047559: sendbackup:  90:  normal(|):   DUMP: The ENTIRE dump is
> aborted.
> 1251825778.048234: sendbackup: critical (fatal): error [dump (21317)
> /sbin/dump returned 3]
>
> So it seems reliable that those 3 lines fix the problem somehow.
> Anything else you want to try before I ask for help on the OpenBSD list?
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Michael Burk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I checked the errata for OpenBSD 4.5, but saw nothing that looked related.
>> I applied the patch to the 0831 snapshot and am building it now. After we
>> find the minimal patch, as Jean-Louis said, I'll post on the OpenBSD-misc
>> list to see if anyone has an explanation.
>>
>> Thanks guys for working on this - I know it's a frustrating one.
>>
>> -- Michael
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Dustin J. Mitchell <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Jean-Louis
>>> Martineau<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > We need to find a minimal patch that fix the problem.
>>> > Cat you try the attached patch?
>>>
>>> This is starting to look like a kernel bug -- is there an associated
>>> OpenBSD bug or something that we could reference in comments in the
>>> code to explain this strange formulation?  Also, we'll probably need
>>> to do this everywhere we fork and plumb a new process -- in
>>> pipespawn.c at least.
>>>
>>> Dustin
>>>
>>> --
>>> Open Source Storage Engineer
>>> http://www.zmanda.com
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to