Re: Dead lock in repository

Hi,

I'm willing to fix anything but it's difficult to pin point the issue 
with so little information, so if you'd be able to reproduce the issue 
with a dummy repository and some clearer instructions, that would be 
most helpful.

KR, Eric

On 02/01/2023 00:56, Robert Nichols wrote:
> On 1/1/23 10:55 AM, EricZolf wrote:
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> On 31/12/2022 18:45, Robert Nichols wrote:
>>> OK, you've enhanced the locking of the repository. Lovely. How do I 
>>> get rid of a dead lock? The process number mentioned in the error 
>>> message does not exist on either the client or the server.
>>
>> Can you be a bit more precise what your problem exactly is?
>>
>> 1. rdiff-backup should refuse to work only if the PID stored 
>> corresponds to an existing process (it was an enhancement added based 
>> on Patrik's feedback).
>> 2. The .lock file remains even after the first backup with API 201, so 
>> that it can be used to lock the repo even without write access rights 
>> (e.g. for restore/list activities).
>> 3. as last resort, the `--force` flag should ignore any lock (at your 
>> own risk though).
> 
> I got a message that another rdiff-backup process with PID xxxx was 
> running in that archive, coupled with a warning that running two 
> rdiff-backup processes simultaneously could result in severe corruption 
> of the archive. rdiff-backup then suggested that running with "--force" 
> would bypass the restriction, and exited with an error status. As I 
> said, that PID did not exist on either the client or the server. In 
> fact, there was no other rdiff-backup process running anywhere on my 
> network. I looked for a possible ".lock" file and did not find any. 
> There was an empty "lock.xxx" (I forget what "xxx" was), which I tried 
> removing, to no avail.
> 
> I'm paraphrasing since I don't have the original message, and my 
> workaround was to rsync the entire archive from a stored copy.
> 
> Unfortunately, "--force" is a bit too heavy a hammer to be wielding for 
> this situation, as it would also override other conditions that I wanted 
> to respect. I'm locking that server to rdiff-backup-2.0.5 since that 
> seems to be the last working version for me.
>