On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 03:07, Christoph Scheeder wrote: > Hmmm, > that's strange, i can't think of anything but deletion that makes > tar think the files had been deleted..... [snip] > > But wait a minute, you say these files live on a samba based backup. > For me this say's they are stored on a WIN-xx box. Correct? > And where to did you restore these files? to the local linux box > or to the original place?
I'm restoring them back to the local Linux box and not back to the Samba client.. these are Windows-based files, yes. > If to the linux-box, it could be possible your versions of smbclient > and tar disagree in the handling of incremental backups, and tar > simply missinterprets the last incremental generated by smbclient. > This is a wild guess, but i've seen many strange things happen when > WIN-xx has been involved. This is a good description of what I think is going on; Amanda/gtar have no trouble doing an accurate restore when restoring files from another Linux partition.. > My first try would be to upgrade samba to the latest version from www.samba.org > and see if the same happens again with a new set of backups of the same data. > Second what version of tar do you use? ( tar --version should tell it to you) I'm running the latest Samba, as well as the latest gtar: amanda@sevenof9 amanda]$ tar --version tar (GNU tar) 1.13.25 [amanda@sevenof9 amanda]$ rpm -qa | grep samba samba-common-2.2.3a-6 samba-client-2.2.3a-6 This is running on RH Linux 7.3; is it possible that I should need to downgrade my version of tar to 1.12 to get this to work? Is anyone else running Samba backup/restores with gtar 1.13.x, and does it work for you? I'm willing to downgrade to gtar 1.12 if that will help.. > Recomended versions are 1.12 with patches from amanda-page or > the latest version from alpha.gnu.org. The 1.13-verions comming with most > linux-distros are buggy and partialy dangerous for your data. Ouch! So even gtar 1.13.25 is buggy and bad for my backups? \marc
