 |
Hello, we fixed some problems with the digest code for 0000462, and I think that this should also solve this problem. (see https://github.com/bareos/bareos/commit/b75dbb84551b93a4f2359db71dea7527edfd0541 ) Please check with the newest master code if your problem is now fixed. Thank you |
|
|
No. The problem is still there. |
|
|
Hello, I'm experiencing the same thing with these settings: FileSet { Name = test-data-fileset Ignore FileSet Changes = yes Include { Options { Compression = GZIP Signature = MD5 BaseJob = pmugcs5 Accurate = mcs5 Verify = pins5 sparse = yes aclsupport = yes xattrsupport = yes hfsplussupport = yes checkfilechanges = yes } The initial checksum is different from all subsequent checksums which are all the same. That is, given the output above, the checksum that is shown in the debug output for accurate_htable.c is different from the one in the debug output of verify.c. In subsequent backups, the checksum in the debug output of verify.c does not change. I'm wondering how these checksums are computed (are they computed on the original file or on the gzipped-file?) and why the initial checksum is different... |
|
|
Hello again, I've found an old thread on the bacula mailing lists that is about a similar issue: http://sourceforge.net/p/bacula/mailman/message/20282084/ I followed the thread and did the following: - Create a full backup. - Run a VolumeToCatalog verify job = OK. - Run a DiskToCatalog verify job = OK. - Run a incremental backup = files are still copied. At the end they talk about the "sparse = yes" setting. If I remove this setting, all is fine again! Moreover, the checksums in the initial full backup are different from the one with the setting "sparse=yes". In this thread, they mention that "the Verify code that creates the hash does not take account of the Sparse flag". Maybe this is the case for the bareos code as well??? So qwerty, would you be able and willing to test this as well (i.e., without the "sparse=yes" setting)? Many thanks, Franky |
|
|
Hi Yes, with "Sparse = no" it works. I missed that bacula thread. It looks like that old bug is still there. Thanks Franky. |
|
|
I'm wondering: will there be some action taken to resolve this issue, or will using the "sparse=no" the only solution to this problem? |
|
|
Is this still reproducible with newer version like 22x? |
|
|
certainly fixed in recent version |
- Anonymous
