[Help-gnunet] Re: gnunetd suddenly very unstable

[Darren West]

Two things are necessary to get around the 2gig filesize limitation.  First, 
update your kernel to  a 2.4 kernel (the latest stable 2.4.19 on kernel.org). 
also update to a more recent glibc.  You should be able to continue using ext2, 
although if you switch to ext3 or reiser, you get the benefits of journaling 
also. Ext3 is also backward compatible with (can be mounted as) ext2, which is 
handy.

Darren
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:04:47 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Christian Drechsler <address@hidden>
> To: Christian Grothoff <address@hidden>
> cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Help-gnunet] Re: gnunetd suddenly very unstable
> 
> hi!
> 
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 24 September 2002 06:26 pm, Christian Drechsler wrote:
> > > hi there!
> > >
> > > i found the real error now when i started gnunetd -d. now i can see:
> > >
> > > gdbm fatal: lseek error
> > >
> > > actually, i don't know what an lseek is; X-) but i'm just running
> > > gnunet-check -a, maybe that will help.
> > 
> > Well, gdbm is the database that we are using, and an lseek error can
> > only mean that the database was corrupted (beats me how/why, I didn't
> > write gdbm, we're just using it). gnunet-check-a may not be able to fix
> > that by itself, you may have to delete the gdbm database
> > (~/.gnunet/database.gdbm) and then run "gnunet-check -a" to regenerate
> > it (there will be some loss of data, though). 
> 
> that would mean all data that i haven't inserted myself would be lost,
> wouldn't it? :-(
> 
> but, one thing: i saw the following now:
> 
> address@hidden data]$ ll
> total 2099084
> drwxrwxr-x    2 zottel   zottel       4096 Aug 10 18:42 content
> -rw-------    1 zottel   zottel   2147480617 Sep 27 00:52 content.gdb
> drwxr-xr-x    2 zottel   zottel       8192 Sep 25 20:36 credit
> drwxr-xr-x    2 zottel   zottel       4096 Sep 26 23:28 hosts
> 
> content.gdb has exactly the size of 2G. wasn't that the limit for a single
> file on an ext2/ext3 fs? to me it seems as if filesize was the problem
> rather than anything else. comments?
> 
> regards, zottel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:09:25 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Christian Drechsler <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [Help-gnunet] gnunet-check -a segfaults
> 
> hi!
> 
> now i tried to rename content.gdb and rebuild the database, but the
> following happens:
> 
> address@hidden data]$ gnunet-check -a
> Checking Content Database
> 
> ==> Done checking 0 entries in content database.
> Checking indexed files
> * [...first file...]
> Segmentation fault
> 
> hm ... ?
> 
> regards, zottel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 3
> From: Christian Grothoff <address@hidden>
> Organization: Secure Software Systems Lab, Computer Science, Purdue University
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Help-gnunet] Re: gnunetd suddenly very unstable
> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:07:22 -0500
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Friday 27 September 2002 02:04 pm, you wrote:
> >
> > that would mean all data that i haven't inserted myself would be lost,
> > wouldn't it? :-(
> 
> Data that was inserted would be lost, but it's likely that you INDEXED all of 
> your data, and the indexed files will be re-indexed by gnunet-check -a.
> 
> > but, one thing: i saw the following now:
> >
> > address@hidden data]$ ll
> > total 2099084
> > drwxrwxr-x    2 zottel   zottel       4096 Aug 10 18:42 content
> > -rw-------    1 zottel   zottel   2147480617 Sep 27 00:52 content.gdb
> > drwxr-xr-x    2 zottel   zottel       8192 Sep 25 20:36 credit
> > drwxr-xr-x    2 zottel   zottel       4096 Sep 26 23:28 hosts
> >
> > content.gdb has exactly the size of 2G. wasn't that the limit for a single
> > file on an ext2/ext3 fs? to me it seems as if filesize was the problem
> > rather than anything else. comments?
> 
> Sounds very likely. Did you really *INSERT* data at the order of 2 GB!? (not 
> index!). This could very well be a gdbm limitation (even if the FS supports 
> more, gdbm may not). I have definitely never tried to insert the amount of 
> data into gdbm that would even get close to 2 GB. 
> 
> Christian
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
> 
> iD8DBQE9lKxr9tNtMeXQLkIRAt7KAJ90aFmobtkHCnZreqo6wp4zfwq8yQCggSHw
> P7B5GCgTwOHgrSrJQ0f/DpM=
> =gQ+9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:30:51 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Christian Drechsler <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Help-gnunet] Re: gnunetd suddenly very unstable
> 
> hi!
> 
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> 
> > On Friday 27 September 2002 02:04 pm, you wrote:
> > >
> > > that would mean all data that i haven't inserted myself would be lost,
> > > wouldn't it? :-(
> > 
> > Data that was inserted would be lost, but it's likely that you INDEXED
> > all of your data, and the indexed files will be re-indexed by
> > gnunet-check -a.
> 
> well, sure, indexed, of course. but that's what i mean: most of this stuff
> is data that has flown by meanwhile. i don't want to lose all these
> answers i have for others. ;-) i've downloaded some very big files, so
> this is where all this stuff comes from.
> 
> > Sounds very likely. Did you really *INSERT* data at the order of 2 GB!?
> > (not index!). This could very well be a gdbm limitation (even if the FS
> > supports more, gdbm may not). I have definitely never tried to insert
> > the amount of data into gdbm that would even get close to 2 GB. 
> 
> hmpf. doesn't sound good to me. i believe this is an fs limitation as i
> had a similar phenomenon recently with a gnunetd-loglevel-9-logfile that
> had grown very quickly. it stopped growing exactly at 2 GB. :-(
> 
> does anyone know if any of the filesystems linux can use doesn't have this
> limitation? i could easily reformat the partition if that was the case.
> 
> regards, zottel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:59:47 +0200
> From: David Hansen <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Organization: United Federation of Planets, Earth 
> Subject: [Help-gnunet] Re: gnunetd suddenly very unstable
> 
> 
> --XigHxYirkHk2Kxsx
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> On Sat, Sep 28 at  0:30 Christian Drechsler wrote:
> > hi!
> >=20
> > does anyone know if any of the filesystems linux can use doesn't have this
> > limitation? i could easily reformat the partition if that was the case.
> >=20
> 
> ext2 has a limit of 2GB but AFAIK reiserfs allows larger files.
> 
> David
> 
> --XigHxYirkHk2Kxsx
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD4DBQE9lOLjv64TGJeASRURAvz4AKDiAaeubA7HsiECQabgoTRoTNs1twCWJbEp
> rcLKTFHxL2vCACpcomw0uA==
> =6TDE
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> --XigHxYirkHk2Kxsx--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Help-gnunet mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnunet
> 
> 
> End of Help-gnunet Digest

-- 
Darren West
address@hidden