An observation I've made -- On my Amanda server, in /usr/local/var/amanda/gnutar-lists, I did an ls and I don't see any files that relate to my Samba share:
[amanda@sevenof9 gnutar-lists]$ ls -l total 2952 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 375105 May 23 03:22 sevenof9__0 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 376640 May 25 03:09 sevenof9__1 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 376596 May 28 03:09 sevenof9__2 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 376862 May 31 03:25 sevenof9__3 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 376891 Jun 2 03:30 sevenof9__4 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 376926 Jun 3 03:35 sevenof9__5 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 9197 Jun 10 03:06 sevenof9_etc_0 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 9197 Jun 11 03:07 sevenof9_etc_1 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 7792 Jun 10 03:08 sevenof9_home_0 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 8515 Jun 11 03:08 sevenof9_home_1 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 16294 Jun 10 03:07 sevenof9_lib_0 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 16294 Jun 11 03:07 sevenof9_lib_1 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 11 Jun 10 03:06 sevenof9_misc_0 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 11 Jun 11 03:07 sevenof9_misc_1 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 11 Jun 10 03:05 sevenof9_opt_0 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 11 Jun 11 03:07 sevenof9_opt_1 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 307939 Jun 11 03:23 sevenof9_usr_0 -rw------- 1 amanda backup 307939 Jun 10 03:12 sevenof9_usr_1 Shouldn't I see files called "sevenof9_samba*" etc.? Could the lack of this file be causing Gnutar to delete my incremental restores on Samba shares but not on the Linux filesystems? Why would Amanda not be creating these files? TIA! \marc On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 10:46, Christoph Scheeder wrote: > Hi, > > Marc N. Cannava wrote: > > > On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 03:07, Christoph Scheeder wrote: > > > [....] > > > >>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.. > > [....] > > > > amanda@sevenof9 amanda]$ tar --version > > tar (GNU tar) 1.13.25 > > > Good, this is a version that should be ok. > > > > [amanda@sevenof9 amanda]$ rpm -qa | grep samba > > samba-common-2.2.3a-6 > > samba-client-2.2.3a-6 > > > Sorry to correct you, latest recommended version of samba on samba-homepage > is 2.2.4, but i'll bet it won't do anything good to upgrade to that version, > but give you lots of trouble if you have samba as pdc and nt boxes as clients, > but thats little off-topic... > > > > > > > > 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.. > > > I don't think it will help you. > > But something other comes to my mind: > what version of windows do the files reside on? > WIN-NT/2000/XP ? > if yes, has the backup user the permision to see and read these files? > > if that's not the problem i've reached the end of my knowledge. > > > Perhaps you realy found a bug in smbclient. > > > > > >>Recomended versions are 1.12 with patches from amanda-page or > >>the latest version from alpha.gnu.org. The 1.13-versions 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? > > > > > > No, but latest version is supposed to have more bugs fixed then older ones. > AFAIR 1.13.25 was the first version after 1.12 most people on this list agreed > to work correct with amanda. > > Christoph >
