[Box Backup-dev] backup of files over 2Gb

[Dave Bamford]

Hi Chris

Thanks for the very prompt reply. I am back in my office tomorrow PM
so I can check things out then with LogAllFileAccess. Currently left the
file compressing with winrar which will bring it back under the 2G. BTW 
the file
is a .bck of the exchange server using volume shadow and I would expect
these to be very large.
The other option is to use a file splitter after creating the file, but 
its messy.
So it would be really nice to knock this problem on the head.

Thanks

Dave




Chris Wilson wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Dave Bamford wrote:
>
>> Is the backup/restore of large files over 2G fixed? from 
>> http://bbdev.fluffy.co.uk/trac/wiki/WindowsClientReleases Build 1662 
>> says its fixed. But its still listed under known bugs for the windows 
>> client.
>
> Which bug, this one?
>
>   http://bbdev.fluffy.co.uk/trac/ticket/2
>
> It's not marked as fixed because I haven't had enough feedback yet. I 
> think that your bug report means that it still isn't fixed :-(
>
>> I am having trouble backing up a 2.5G file. Its reporting 00001 
>> blocks on the server and a "get" restores a file of 0 bytes. However 
>> the event log reports it being backed up (no issues).
>
> That sounds very bad. I've been meaning to look into this for a while. 
> Will try to have a look tonight.
>
>> I am using release 1857 in 
>> http://bbdev.fluffy.co.uk/svn/box/chris/win32/releases/ as the client 
>> on a windows 2003 server to a Debian etch server running the vanilla 
>> 0.10 release.
>>
>> I am in a position to do some testing as the server and client are in 
>> the same building, currently backing up via the net but I could 
>> connect them through a LAN.
>
> That could be very helpful, thanks. I'll run some tests locally to see 
> if I can reproduce it.
>
> In the mean time, if you could enable LogAllFileAccess on the client 
> and run bbackupd with the -V option, the resulting logs might help me 
> to pin down the problem even if I can't reproduce it locally. You 
> might want to touch that large file first, to ensure that it does get 
> backed up on the next run.
>
> Cheers, Chris.