* Kern Sibbald schrieb am 17.09.07 um 08:11 Uhr:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:46, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
[...]
> >
> > Bingo!
>
> Great.
>
> >
> > I just commented out the "#define HAV_POSIX_FADVISE" line, recompiled...
> > No more crashes.
> >
> > May this behavior depend on the kernel? The server running bacula is
> > a debian sarge system, but it is running an older kernel (2.4.20)
> > than what is in sarge because of a special kernel-module.
>
> Hmmm. I *never* expected HAVE_POSIX_FADVISE to be turned on for a 2.4 kernel.
>
> >
> > So my question is: is posix_fadvise() in sarge bad or is it my
> > combination of sarge supporting it and that kernel 2.4.20 maybe not
> > supporting it?
>
> I would like to understand why it is turned on on your system. Did you start
> your build with a virgin Bacula source directory? or did you copy it from
> some previously configured system?
I thought I could explain that:
I have a build-host running a 2.6 kernel. Every build is done in a
separate dedicated chroot-environment for sarge, etch, edgy, feisty
and so on. So the kernel at compile may differ from that at
runtime.
BUT:
I now moved that sarge chroot to the machine running 2.4.20.
It still detects posix_fadvise!
Might it be that this test depends on the libc version or something like
that and not really on the kernel?
[...]
checking for posix_fadvise... yes
[...]
(and its really set in src/config.h after configure)
BTW:
Debian sarge ships with 2.6 as well as 2.4 kernel-images:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache policy kernel-image-2.6.8-4-686
kernel-image-2.6.8-4-686:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 2.6.8-17
Version Table:
2.6.8-17 0
500 http://ftp.de.debian.org sarge-proposed-updates/main Packages
2.6.8-16sarge7 0
500 http://security.debian.org sarge/updates/main Packages
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache policy kernel-image-2.4.27-2-686
kernel-image-2.4.27-2-686:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 2.4.27-10sarge1
Version Table:
2.4.27-10sarge1 0
500 http://security.debian.org sarge/updates/main Packages
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
>
> I ask, because I am running Bacula version 2.2.1 on Red Hat 7.1, which is
> using kernel 2.4.0, and the HAVE_POSIX_FADVISE function is automatically
> turned off.
That is ok then, but I guess most people install packages instead of
compiling a software on their. So for sarge this can be either
kernel.
Not to forget those people using a distro with all its packages but
having their own kernels because of special features, different
configs and the like.
>
> I'm surprised it even built on your system. It sounds like to me that your
> kernel may have an incorrect or incomplete back port of fadvise.
>
IIRC this is a vanilla 2.4.20 kernel so I don't think there is a
backport.
> Can you see if you get anything when you do "man posix_fadvise". If you do
> get something, please send it to me.
No manual entry for posix_fadvise
>
> >
> > Thanks for helping!
>
> Sorry you had so much trouble.
I tend to hit corner cases ;-)
-Marc
--
+-O . . . o . . . O . . . o . . . O . . . ___ . . . O . . . o .-+
| Ein Service von Links2Linux.de: / o\ RPMs for SuSE |
| --> PackMan! <-- naeheres unter | __| and others |
| http://packman.links2linux.de/ . . . O \__\ . . . O . . . O . |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
