OSR6: [ -f largefile ] fails - SCO

This is a discussion on OSR6: [ -f largefile ] fails - SCO ; I have a few 2.6gb files that can't be seen by the -f flag in the "if" shell command. Example: # # ls -l *.bkf -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2674424832 Apr 13 04:22 fri.bkf -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675064832 Apr ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: OSR6: [ -f largefile ] fails

  1. OSR6: [ -f largefile ] fails


    I have a few 2.6gb files that can't be seen by the -f flag in the "if"
    shell command.

    Example:

    #
    #
    ls -l *.bkf
    -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2674424832 Apr 13 04:22 fri.bkf
    -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675064832 Apr 16 04:21 mon.bkf
    -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2673615872 Apr 12 04:22 thu.bkf
    -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 17 04:22 tue.bkf
    -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 18 04:22 wed.bkf
    #
    #
    # [ -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    #
    # [ ! -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    yes
    #
    #

    Explanation: The first if statement SHOULD print "yes" but doesn't.
    The second does print yes but shouldn't.

    This problem is causing lone-tar to fail, but it really isn't a lone-
    tar problem since it happens in a simple shell script also. But lone-
    tar didn't get this error until I upgraded from lone-tar 4.2 to
    4.2.2. I don't know why the shell f flag is broken. (yes I tried
    the /u95/bin/sh)

    Lone-tar log shows the following:

    lone-tar: can't find thu.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    data type
    lone-tar: can't find fri.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    data type
    ENDED: Wed Apr 18 01:02:26 CDT
    2007
    ************************************************** ****************************
    RESULT: WARNING(15): LONE-TAR Master Backup (cron)
    FAILED!!!
    ************************************************** ****************************
    ************************************************** ****************************
    Verify ABORTED since Backup FAILED!!! Wed Apr 18 01:02:27 CDT
    2007
    ************************************************** ****************************

    I've tried the /bin/sh and /u95/bin/sh with no diff.

    I believe that OSR6 should be treated like a OSR507 system - ie; NO
    FILES OVER 2 GIG ALLOWED. I'm ok with that because I don't really
    need the large files anyway. I was just using the storage as a
    redundantly redundant redundancy.

    OSR6 is the large file system that doesn't like large files. ( so
    neither do I )


  2. Re: OSR6: [ -f largefile ] fails

    On Apr 18, 7:46 am, e...@hotmail.com wrote:
    > I have a few 2.6gb files that can't be seen by the -f flag in the "if"
    > shell command.
    >
    > Example:
    >
    > #
    > #
    > ls -l *.bkf
    > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2674424832 Apr 13 04:22 fri.bkf
    > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675064832 Apr 16 04:21 mon.bkf
    > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2673615872 Apr 12 04:22 thu.bkf
    > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 17 04:22 tue.bkf
    > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 18 04:22 wed.bkf
    > #
    > #
    > # [ -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    > #
    > # [ ! -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    > yes
    > #
    > #
    >
    > Explanation: The first if statement SHOULD print "yes" but doesn't.
    > The second does print yes but shouldn't.
    >
    > This problem is causing lone-tar to fail, but it really isn't a lone-
    > tar problem since it happens in a simple shell script also. But lone-
    > tar didn't get this error until I upgraded from lone-tar 4.2 to
    > 4.2.2. I don't know why the shell f flag is broken. (yes I tried
    > the /u95/bin/sh)
    >
    > Lone-tar log shows the following:
    >
    > lone-tar: can't find thu.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    > data type
    > lone-tar: can't find fri.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    > data type
    > ENDED: Wed Apr 18 01:02:26 CDT
    > 2007
    > ************************************************** ****************************
    > RESULT: WARNING(15): LONE-TAR Master Backup (cron)
    > FAILED!!!
    > ************************************************** ****************************
    > ************************************************** ****************************
    > Verify ABORTED since Backup FAILED!!! Wed Apr 18 01:02:27 CDT
    > 2007
    > ************************************************** ****************************
    >
    > I've tried the /bin/sh and /u95/bin/sh with no diff.
    >
    > I believe that OSR6 should be treated like a OSR507 system - ie; NO
    > FILES OVER 2 GIG ALLOWED. I'm ok with that because I don't really
    > need the large files anyway. I was just using the storage as a
    > redundantly redundant redundancy.
    >
    > OSR6 is the large file system that doesn't like large files. ( so
    > neither do I )


    You may not actually be executing the /u95/bin shell. "[" is in /usr/
    bin so it's not exactly the same as an "if." Try
    if [ -f xxxxx ] ; then ...

    If your LoneTar release isn't specifically for OS6 it may not have the
    large file support anyway.

    Those /u95/bin utilities are a nuisance. They don't seem complete and
    don't always behave the same way as their counterparts in /usr/bin.

    --RLR


  3. Re: OSR6: [ -f largefile ] fails

    ThreeStar wrote (on Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 08:47:26AM -0700):

    | On Apr 18, 7:46 am, e...@hotmail.com wrote:
    | > I have a few 2.6gb files that can't be seen by the -f flag in the "if"
    | > shell command.
    | >
    | > Example:
    | >
    | > #
    | > #
    | > ls -l *.bkf
    | > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2674424832 Apr 13 04:22 fri.bkf
    | > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675064832 Apr 16 04:21 mon.bkf
    | > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2673615872 Apr 12 04:22 thu.bkf
    | > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 17 04:22 tue.bkf
    | > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 18 04:22 wed.bkf
    | > #
    | > #
    | > # [ -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    | > #
    | > # [ ! -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    | > yes
    | > #
    | > #
    | >
    | > Explanation: The first if statement SHOULD print "yes" but doesn't.
    | > The second does print yes but shouldn't.
    | >
    | > This problem is causing lone-tar to fail, but it really isn't a lone-
    | > tar problem since it happens in a simple shell script also. But lone-
    | > tar didn't get this error until I upgraded from lone-tar 4.2 to
    | > 4.2.2. I don't know why the shell f flag is broken. (yes I tried
    | > the /u95/bin/sh)
    | >
    | > Lone-tar log shows the following:
    | >
    | > lone-tar: can't find thu.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    | > data type
    | > lone-tar: can't find fri.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    | > data type
    | > ENDED: Wed Apr 18 01:02:26 CDT
    | > 2007
    | > ************************************************** ****************************
    | > RESULT: WARNING(15): LONE-TAR Master Backup (cron)
    | > FAILED!!!
    | > ************************************************** ****************************
    | > ************************************************** ****************************
    | > Verify ABORTED since Backup FAILED!!! Wed Apr 18 01:02:27 CDT
    | > 2007
    | > ************************************************** ****************************
    | >
    | > I've tried the /bin/sh and /u95/bin/sh with no diff.
    | >
    | > I believe that OSR6 should be treated like a OSR507 system - ie; NO
    | > FILES OVER 2 GIG ALLOWED. I'm ok with that because I don't really
    | > need the large files anyway. I was just using the storage as a
    | > redundantly redundant redundancy.
    | >
    | > OSR6 is the large file system that doesn't like large files. ( so
    | > neither do I )
    |
    | You may not actually be executing the /u95/bin shell. "[" is in /usr/
    | bin so it's not exactly the same as an "if." Try
    | if [ -f xxxxx ] ; then ...
    |
    | If your LoneTar release isn't specifically for OS6 it may not have the
    | large file support anyway.
    |
    | Those /u95/bin utilities are a nuisance. They don't seem complete and
    | don't always behave the same way as their counterparts in /usr/bin.
    |
    | --RLR

    FWIW, I just read "Managing Large Files on VxFS" in DocView, and it
    says that /u95/bin/sh and /u95/bin/ksh are not large file aware, but
    bash and zsh are (at least in-so-far as shell redirection).

    Bob

    --
    Bob Stockler +-+ bob@trebor.iglou.com +-+ http://members.iglou.com/trebor

  4. Re: OSR6: [ -f largefile ] fails

    On Apr 18, 10:47 am, ThreeStar wrote:
    > On Apr 18, 7:46 am, e...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > I have a few 2.6gb files that can't be seen by the -f flag in the "if"
    > > shell command.

    >
    > > Example:

    >
    > > #
    > > #
    > > ls -l *.bkf
    > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2674424832 Apr 13 04:22 fri.bkf
    > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675064832 Apr 16 04:21 mon.bkf
    > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2673615872 Apr 12 04:22 thu.bkf
    > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 17 04:22 tue.bkf
    > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 18 04:22 wed.bkf
    > > #
    > > #
    > > # [ -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    > > #
    > > # [ ! -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    > > yes
    > > #
    > > #

    >
    > > Explanation: The first if statement SHOULD print "yes" but doesn't.
    > > The second does print yes but shouldn't.

    >
    > > This problem is causing lone-tar to fail, but it really isn't a lone-
    > > tar problem since it happens in a simple shell script also. But lone-
    > > tar didn't get this error until I upgraded from lone-tar 4.2 to
    > > 4.2.2. I don't know why the shell f flag is broken. (yes I tried
    > > the /u95/bin/sh)

    >
    > > Lone-tar log shows the following:

    >
    > > lone-tar: can't find thu.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    > > data type
    > > lone-tar: can't find fri.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    > > data type
    > > ENDED: Wed Apr 18 01:02:26 CDT
    > > 2007
    > > ************************************************** *****************************
    > > RESULT: WARNING(15): LONE-TAR Master Backup (cron)
    > > FAILED!!!
    > > ************************************************** *****************************
    > > ************************************************** *****************************
    > > Verify ABORTED since Backup FAILED!!! Wed Apr 18 01:02:27 CDT
    > > 2007
    > > ************************************************** *****************************

    >
    > > I've tried the /bin/sh and /u95/bin/sh with no diff.

    >
    > > I believe that OSR6 should be treated like a OSR507 system - ie; NO
    > > FILES OVER 2 GIG ALLOWED. I'm ok with that because I don't really
    > > need the large files anyway. I was just using the storage as a
    > > redundantly redundant redundancy.

    >
    > > OSR6 is the large file system that doesn't like large files. ( so
    > > neither do I )

    >
    > You may not actually be executing the /u95/bin shell. "[" is in /usr/
    > bin so it's not exactly the same as an "if." Try
    > if [ -f xxxxx ] ; then ...
    >
    > If your LoneTar release isn't specifically for OS6 it may not have the
    > large file support anyway.
    > I've tried the "if [ -f ...." method also without success...


    I am trying a backup with NO large files in the system.
    If that works, then I'll consider the problem solved.
    I never cared about large files anyway.


    > Those /u95/bin utilities are a nuisance. They don't seem complete and
    > don't always behave the same way as their counterparts in /usr/bin.
    >



    I agree. /u95 was an unexpected wrinkle in the fabric of my
    universe.
    I had more than enough wrinkles.

    I don't know what the goal was when they started the inclusion of this
    LARGE FS, but I believe the experiment hasn't turned out well,. It
    happens that way sometimes.


  5. Re: OSR6: [ -f largefile ] fails


    etnuf@hotmail.com wrote:
    > On Apr 18, 10:47 am, ThreeStar wrote:
    > > On Apr 18, 7:46 am, e...@hotmail.com wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > I have a few 2.6gb files that can't be seen by the -f flag in the "if"
    > > > shell command.

    > >
    > > > Example:

    > >
    > > > #
    > > > #
    > > > ls -l *.bkf
    > > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2674424832 Apr 13 04:22 fri.bkf
    > > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675064832 Apr 16 04:21 mon.bkf
    > > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2673615872 Apr 12 04:22 thu.bkf
    > > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 17 04:22 tue.bkf
    > > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 18 04:22 wed.bkf
    > > > #
    > > > #
    > > > # [ -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    > > > #
    > > > # [ ! -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    > > > yes
    > > > #
    > > > #

    > >
    > > > Explanation: The first if statement SHOULD print "yes" but doesn't.
    > > > The second does print yes but shouldn't.

    > >
    > > > This problem is causing lone-tar to fail, but it really isn't a lone-
    > > > tar problem since it happens in a simple shell script also. But lone-
    > > > tar didn't get this error until I upgraded from lone-tar 4.2 to
    > > > 4.2.2. I don't know why the shell f flag is broken. (yes I tried
    > > > the /u95/bin/sh)

    > >
    > > > Lone-tar log shows the following:

    > >
    > > > lone-tar: can't find thu.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    > > > data type
    > > > lone-tar: can't find fri.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    > > > data type
    > > > ENDED: Wed Apr 18 01:02:26 CDT
    > > > 2007
    > > > ************************************************** *****************************
    > > > RESULT: WARNING(15): LONE-TAR Master Backup (cron)
    > > > FAILED!!!
    > > > ************************************************** *****************************
    > > > ************************************************** *****************************
    > > > Verify ABORTED since Backup FAILED!!! Wed Apr 18 01:02:27 CDT
    > > > 2007
    > > > ************************************************** *****************************

    > >
    > > > I've tried the /bin/sh and /u95/bin/sh with no diff.

    > >
    > > > I believe that OSR6 should be treated like a OSR507 system - ie; NO
    > > > FILES OVER 2 GIG ALLOWED. I'm ok with that because I don't really
    > > > need the large files anyway. I was just using the storage as a
    > > > redundantly redundant redundancy.

    > >
    > > > OSR6 is the large file system that doesn't like large files. ( so
    > > > neither do I )

    > >
    > > You may not actually be executing the /u95/bin shell. "[" is in /usr/
    > > bin so it's not exactly the same as an "if." Try
    > > if [ -f xxxxx ] ; then ...
    > >
    > > If your LoneTar release isn't specifically for OS6 it may not have the
    > > large file support anyway.
    > > I've tried the "if [ -f ...." method also without success...

    >
    > I am trying a backup with NO large files in the system.
    > If that works, then I'll consider the problem solved.
    > I never cared about large files anyway.
    >
    >
    > > Those /u95/bin utilities are a nuisance. They don't seem complete and
    > > don't always behave the same way as their counterparts in /usr/bin.
    > >

    >
    >
    > I agree. /u95 was an unexpected wrinkle in the fabric of my
    > universe.
    > I had more than enough wrinkles.
    >
    > I don't know what the goal was when they started the inclusion of this
    > LARGE FS, but I believe the experiment hasn't turned out well,. It
    > happens that way sometimes.


    One last followup...

    I removed the 5 large files, and now lone-tar completes successfully.

    It was a strange error because I had included the 5 large files in the
    exclude.M list hoping to prevent those files from being backed up.
    But lone-tar would see the files, and error on "Value too large for
    defined data type" and consider that a backup failure even though
    these files were listed in the exclude.M file. The backup failure
    would then cause lone-tar to bypass the verify phase. A manual verify
    showed the backup was ok (less the 5 big files of course)


  6. Re: OSR6: [ -f largefile ] fails

    etnuf@hotmail.com typed (on Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 02:03:14PM -0700):
    |
    | etnuf@hotmail.com wrote:
    | > On Apr 18, 10:47 am, ThreeStar wrote:
    | > > On Apr 18, 7:46 am, e...@hotmail.com wrote:
    | > >
    | > >
    | > >
    | > >
    | > >
    | > > > I have a few 2.6gb files that can't be seen by the -f flag in the "if"
    | > > > shell command.
    | > >
    | > > > Example:
    | > >
    | > > > #
    | > > > #
    | > > > ls -l *.bkf
    | > > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2674424832 Apr 13 04:22 fri.bkf
    | > > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675064832 Apr 16 04:21 mon.bkf
    | > > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2673615872 Apr 12 04:22 thu.bkf
    | > > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 17 04:22 tue.bkf
    | > > > -rw-rw-rw- 1 peach group 2675569664 Apr 18 04:22 wed.bkf
    | > > > #
    | > > > #
    | > > > # [ -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    | > > > #
    | > > > # [ ! -f fri.bkf ] && echo yes
    | > > > yes
    | > > > #
    | > > > #
    | > >
    | > > > Explanation: The first if statement SHOULD print "yes" but doesn't.
    | > > > The second does print yes but shouldn't.
    | > >
    | > > > This problem is causing lone-tar to fail, but it really isn't a lone-
    | > > > tar problem since it happens in a simple shell script also. But lone-
    | > > > tar didn't get this error until I upgraded from lone-tar 4.2 to
    | > > > 4.2.2. I don't know why the shell f flag is broken. (yes I tried
    | > > > the /u95/bin/sh)
    | > >
    | > > > Lone-tar log shows the following:
    | > >
    | > > > lone-tar: can't find thu.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    | > > > data type
    | > > > lone-tar: can't find fri.bkf because...Value too large for defined
    | > > > data type
    | > > > ENDED: Wed Apr 18 01:02:26 CDT
    | > > > 2007
    | > > > ************************************************** *****************************
    | > > > RESULT: WARNING(15): LONE-TAR Master Backup (cron)
    | > > > FAILED!!!
    | > > > ************************************************** *****************************
    | > > > ************************************************** *****************************
    | > > > Verify ABORTED since Backup FAILED!!! Wed Apr 18 01:02:27 CDT
    | > > > 2007
    | > > > ************************************************** *****************************
    | > >
    | > > > I've tried the /bin/sh and /u95/bin/sh with no diff.
    | > >
    | > > > I believe that OSR6 should be treated like a OSR507 system - ie; NO
    | > > > FILES OVER 2 GIG ALLOWED. I'm ok with that because I don't really
    | > > > need the large files anyway. I was just using the storage as a
    | > > > redundantly redundant redundancy.
    | > >
    | > > > OSR6 is the large file system that doesn't like large files. ( so
    | > > > neither do I )
    | > >
    | > > You may not actually be executing the /u95/bin shell. "[" is in /usr/
    | > > bin so it's not exactly the same as an "if." Try
    | > > if [ -f xxxxx ] ; then ...
    | > >
    | > > If your LoneTar release isn't specifically for OS6 it may not have the
    | > > large file support anyway.
    | > > I've tried the "if [ -f ...." method also without success...
    | >
    | > I am trying a backup with NO large files in the system.
    | > If that works, then I'll consider the problem solved.
    | > I never cared about large files anyway.
    | >
    | >
    | > > Those /u95/bin utilities are a nuisance. They don't seem complete and
    | > > don't always behave the same way as their counterparts in /usr/bin.
    | > >
    | >
    | >
    | > I agree. /u95 was an unexpected wrinkle in the fabric of my
    | > universe.
    | > I had more than enough wrinkles.
    | >
    | > I don't know what the goal was when they started the inclusion of this
    | > LARGE FS, but I believe the experiment hasn't turned out well,. It
    | > happens that way sometimes.
    |
    | One last followup...
    |
    | I removed the 5 large files, and now lone-tar completes successfully.
    |
    | It was a strange error because I had included the 5 large files in the
    | exclude.M list hoping to prevent those files from being backed up.
    | But lone-tar would see the files, and error on "Value too large for
    | defined data type" and consider that a backup failure even though
    | these files were listed in the exclude.M file. The backup failure
    | would then cause lone-tar to bypass the verify phase. A manual verify
    | showed the backup was ok (less the 5 big files of course)

    Hello,

    Do you get a LONE-TAR Serial Number so I can track this?

    Thanks,
    Jeff Hyman
    .--.
    ___________________________ .-. | | _____________________________________
    Lone Star Software Corp. | | | | .-. Home of World Famous LONE-TAR(tm)
    Cactus International, Inc. | |_| | | | Backup Software for UNIX and LINUX
    Sales: 800.525.8649 _ |___ |_| | 24x7 Support Available
    Support: 301.829.1622 _| ~- | ___| RESCUE-RANGER(tm) and AIR-BAG(tm)
    http://www.LONE-TAR.com \, _} | | Disaster Recovery Software
    -------------------------- \( -- | | --------------------------------------
    | |


+ Reply to Thread