Greg,
This has the same problem as mentioned earlier, if the problem is in the ext2fs on Linux 2.2.19.
I found the following article referencing a 2GB file size limit:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ext2fs+%22file+size%22+maximum&hl=en&scoring=d&selm=20010411124006.C2072%40navel.introspect&rnum=5Q: Is there any way around the 2GB file-size limit in Linux? Are there
any stable patches to fix it?
A: Short answer: In a practical sense, no. The 2GB limit is deeply
embedded in the versions of Linux for 32-bit CPUs: in GNU libc, in the
Linux kernel's filesystem drivers and VFS layer, in the fundamental
design of some filesystems, and in the function calls used in the
compiled applications and utilities furnished in (and for) typical Linux
systems. There is thus currently no VA-supported configuration. Long
answer: All Linux ports for 32-bit CPUs (i.e., all architectures other
than Alpha and IA-64) use 32-bit integers for file access and locking,
yielding a maximum size of 2^31 - 1 =3D 2GB. Creating a workaround for
this situation without breaking existing code is an obstacle for all
32-bit Unixes[1], whose creators met to design a standard 64-bit
file-access programming interface, at a meeting sponsored by X/Open,
called the Large File Summit (LFS)[2]. The resulting large-file
standard and related system calls are likewise called LFS.
While this refers to VA Linux, I'm assuming it applies to RedHat 2.2.
Given that, if you can't write a bigger file directly, then flexbackup would have to be modified to split the file on the fly, so there never was a file created bigger than 2GB.
However, all this begs the question, if 2GB is the limit, then why do we see problems at 4GB - that's one more bit than 2GB?
Greg O wrote:
>
> How about doing a flexbackup to local disk (of course, this
> presumes you've got more than 50% free disk space, but it's a
> start), then using tar or some other sort of voluming tool to
> pop into byte-sized chunks to send off to your backup device?
> (ie 2Gig/4Gig or whatever you choose).
>
> Problem is, I don't know how. I've read the tar docs, and got
> nowhere. Specifically,
>
http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar-1.12/html_node/tar_42.html> says very little about the -M option. I'm guessing someone
> out there knows how to use tar WAY better than I do. I'm not
> even sure the -M option is the one needed.
>
> still hoping to fix backup probs, (or should I say, complete
> non-functionality)
>
> Greg.