[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upl
From: |
Kris |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http:// |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:43:50 -0400 |
Hi all,
Thank again for all your help. Unfortunately I had to downgrade back to 0.6.14
to get everything back up and running. When I have some more spare time, I
might dig in deeper, unless someone gets to it before me. At least the issue
has been smoked out to some extent. If there is something I can help someone
with regarding to this, just send me an email.
Kris
On 2011-11-03, at 5:33 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> On 03.11.2011 02:18, Michael Terry wrote:
>> On 2 November 2011 19:34, Kris <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> I'm taking a look at it again right now. Just a FYI before I dig in, I
>>> removed the volsize cmd line and it did the same thing. The default volsize
>>> is 25MB in duplicity and that's what the tmp file is. The remote file
>>> however is 50 megs. The PoolWorkers split the chunk in to two 25 meg chunks
>>> and uploaded those, which isn't proper.
>>
>> Good debugging work, Kris. This isn't bug 498933 after all, but is
>> instead a bug in 0.6.16 specifically. In that version, the S3 backend
>> got new 'multichunk' support.
>
> Well done Kris indeed
>
>> But it seems to have a bug that when the size of the volume isn't
>> perfectly divisible by the multichunk size, it will upload too much
>> data. I've filed bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/duplicity/+bug/885513
>> about it.
>
> Hopefully this can be closed with the patch provided
>
>>
>> For now, I believe you can workaround it with
>> --s3-multipart-chunk-size=1000 (causing duplicity to basically ignore
>> the multipart code).
>
> Nice, you already added it to the bug
>
>>
>> I feel like suggesting that maybe the multipart branch should be
>> backed out until it can be stress tested a bit more? (so far we've
>> noticed this bug and bug 878220 (the one where botobackend.py added a
>> new, uncommon, and unconditional import due to the patch)
>
> How else do you think people would test the new code? If you really feel so,
> maybe you should disable multichunking by default leaving it up to the
> adventurous to try it out.
>
> ..ede/duply.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Duplicity-talk mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://, (continued)
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://, Kris, 2011/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://, edgar . soldin, 2011/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://, Kris, 2011/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://, Michael Terry, 2011/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://, Kris, 2011/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://, Kris, 2011/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://, Michael Terry, 2011/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://, Kris, 2011/11/02
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://, edgar . soldin, 2011/11/03
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://, Kris, 2011/11/03
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] Duplicity 0.6.16 "File XXX was corrupted during upload." to s3+http://,
Kris <=