Hi Thanks for the quick reply. I see, yes that does seem like the most likely explanation. I didn't consider than 156 could be an accumulative value. I didn't manually delete anything, so I'm guessing a clean-up happened.
Thanks again Jamie -----Original Message----- From: Holger Parplies [mailto:wb...@parplies.de] Sent: 30 October 2018 15:24 To: Jamie Burchell <ja...@ib3.uk> Cc: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC administrative attention needed email incorrect? Hi, Jamie Burchell wrote on 2018-10-30 09:31:13 -0000 [[BackupPC-users] BackupPC administrative attention needed email incorrect?]: > [...] > Yesterday, I received the following email from the BackupPC process: > [...] > > Yesterday 156 hosts were skipped because the file system containing > > /var/lib/BackupPC/ was too full. [...] > > The email was correct in that disk space was low, but the number of > reported ???hosts skipped??? doesn???t seem right. I have 39 hosts, > 152 full backups and 952 incrementals. The email says they were > skipped, but there are no gaps that I can see in any of the backups. > Just wondering if this is a bug. without looking into the code, 156 seems to be 4 * 39 - could it be that after 4 wakeups disk space dropped low enough for backups to resume (by backup expiration or someone deleting something from the partition)? That would explain that there is no gap. You just might find the backups happened at a slightly later point in time than you would normally expect. Hope that helps. Regards, Holger _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
