Re: 3.2.0 beta1 release
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: > applies and seems to work. encrypted DLE dumped. Great! I'll wait to hear back from Jean-Louis about the potential memory leak, then, before committing. Dustin -- Open Source Storage Engineer http://www.zmanda.com
Re: 3.2.0 beta1 release
Am 2010-10-03 23:57, schrieb Dustin J. Mitchell: > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: >> Sorry, it doesn't apply when using my amanda-3.2.0_beta1.ebuild ;-( >> >> Will look into it tomorrow. > > There's a version rebased onto the 3.2.0_beta1 tag at > http://github.com/djmitche/amanda/commit/z12066.patch applies and seems to work. encrypted DLE dumped. S
Re: 3.2.0 beta1 release
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: > Sorry, it doesn't apply when using my amanda-3.2.0_beta1.ebuild ;-( > > Will look into it tomorrow. There's a version rebased onto the 3.2.0_beta1 tag at http://github.com/djmitche/amanda/commit/z12066.patch Dustin -- Open Source Storage Engineer http://www.zmanda.com
Re: 3.2.0 beta1 release
Am 2010-10-03 21:33, schrieb Dustin J. Mitchell: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote: >> OK, in trying to duplicate this, I'm getting dumper segfaults, which >> is probably the same bug -- it looks like dumper is printing random >> memory in the error message above. So consider it replicated - and >> I'll try to get a fix put together this weekend. > > OK, here's a partial fix. Can you confirm that this works for you? > > http://github.com/djmitche/amanda/commit/z12091.patch Sorry, it doesn't apply when using my amanda-3.2.0_beta1.ebuild ;-( Will look into it tomorrow. Thanks, Stefan
Re: 3.2.0 beta1 release
Am 2010-10-03 21:33, schrieb Dustin J. Mitchell: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote: >> OK, in trying to duplicate this, I'm getting dumper segfaults, which >> is probably the same bug -- it looks like dumper is printing random >> memory in the error message above. So consider it replicated - and >> I'll try to get a fix put together this weekend. > > OK, here's a partial fix. Can you confirm that this works for you? > > http://github.com/djmitche/amanda/commit/z12091.patch thanks, will try that tomorrow ... (late here) Stefan
Re: Confused by amanda's 'planner': why multiple level 0?
At Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:19:50 -0500 "Dustin J. Mitchell" wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > > One of the downsides of using a very *stable* Linux distro with long > > term stable support. Â OTOH, it avoids the fun of re-installing > > everything every 6-12 months and then spending a couple of months > > getting all of the settings tweaked just right... > > Sure, I understand - I just can't offer you much help in that case :) Actually, you did provide quite alot of help (thanks!). Having some insight into the gory inner workings actually helped -- it helped me understand what Amanda was upto and why it is doing what it does. From another post I got the idea of have two configs (with a shared common config), one for archival fulls (run manually, once a month) and one for dailyincr (run from cron). The archival fulls use large tapes (4.3gig -- just right for burning to DVD-Rs) and the dailyincr use smaller tapes (1.075gig -- could burn sets of 4 to DVD-Rs, if I feel there is a need to), both use upto 4 tapes/run. The archival's disk list has everything set to 'only-full' (skip-incr=yes) and the dailyincr has only the disks that need incrs with stategy=incronly. Certain disks don't get/need incrementals: /, /boot, and /usr get monthly fulls only -- they are pretty much 'static' file systems. So far, I *seem* to be getting something like what I want (not perfect, but close enough) -- time will tell for sure. > > Dustin > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software-- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows hel...@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
Re: 3.2.0 beta1 release
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote: > OK, in trying to duplicate this, I'm getting dumper segfaults, which > is probably the same bug -- it looks like dumper is printing random > memory in the error message above. So consider it replicated - and > I'll try to get a fix put together this weekend. OK, here's a partial fix. Can you confirm that this works for you? http://github.com/djmitche/amanda/commit/z12091.patch Dustin -- Open Source Storage Engineer http://www.zmanda.com
Re: Confused by amanda's 'planner': why multiple level 0?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > One of the downsides of using a very *stable* Linux distro with long > term stable support. OTOH, it avoids the fun of re-installing > everything every 6-12 months and then spending a couple of months > getting all of the settings tweaked just right... Sure, I understand - I just can't offer you much help in that case :) Dustin -- Open Source Storage Engineer http://www.zmanda.com
Re: Confused by amanda's 'planner': why multiple level 0?
At Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:37:25 -0500 "Dustin J. Mitchell" wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Robert Heller wrote: > > Also I am pretty much stuck with 2.5.0, since that is what comes with > > CentOS... (I don't at this point want to 'experiment' with a bleeding > > edge self-built package, not for something like this.) > > Yikes, you may be *very* out of luck, then. 2.5.0 is four and a half > years old - long before I began working on Amanda. One of the downsides of using a very *stable* Linux distro with long term stable support. OTOH, it avoids the fun of re-installing everything every 6-12 months and then spending a couple of months getting all of the settings tweaked just right... > > You should consult the manpages for 2.5.0 (presumably included with > your distro) to see how various parameters work - much has changed > since then. In particular, look at the bump parameters, and change > your runtapes to 1. > > You're in a pretty constrained set of circumstances, and I'm not sure > 2.5.0 was flexible enough to get you what you want. Yeah, it looks that way... > > Dustin > > -- > Open Source Storage Engineer > http://www.zmanda.com > > -- Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar! Deepwoods Software-- Linux Installation and Administration http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database hel...@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk
Re: Confused by amanda's 'planner': why multiple level 0?
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Robert Heller wrote: > Also I am pretty much stuck with 2.5.0, since that is what comes with > CentOS... (I don't at this point want to 'experiment' with a bleeding > edge self-built package, not for something like this.) Yikes, you may be *very* out of luck, then. 2.5.0 is four and a half years old - long before I began working on Amanda. You should consult the manpages for 2.5.0 (presumably included with your distro) to see how various parameters work - much has changed since then. In particular, look at the bump parameters, and change your runtapes to 1. You're in a pretty constrained set of circumstances, and I'm not sure 2.5.0 was flexible enough to get you what you want. Dustin -- Open Source Storage Engineer http://www.zmanda.com
Re: amreport version 3.1.2
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Gunnarsson, Gunnar < gunnar.gunnars...@svk.se> wrote: > It is reported as failed see below and those parts are added twice - > filesystem 66 parts 68. > In earlier version it is reported correctly. > Perhaps this is a change in behavior, but I think that this version is arguably more correct: the taper *did* tape 68 parts, two of which were partial. And there *were* two failures, athough the report should also mention that they were successfully retried, e.g., hansabck /var/amanda/amandatapes/ems1/slot13 lev 0 partial taper: No space left on device hansabck /var/amanda/amandatapes/ems1/slot13 lev 0 successfully retried hansabck /var/amanda/amandatapes/ems1/slot65 lev 0 partial taper: No space left on device hansabck /var/amanda/amandatapes/ems1/slot65 lev 0 successfully retried Does that sound about right? Can you send a copy of the trace log that produced this, and I will add the "successfully retried"? Dustin -- Open Source Storage Engineer http://www.zmanda.com
Re: Confused by amanda's 'planner': why multiple level 0?
At Sun, 3 Oct 2010 10:11:57 -0500 "Dustin J. Mitchell" wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > > I picked a 'virtual' tape size to match the capacity of a DVD-R: 4.3Gig, > > with the idea of migrating the fulls and the more major incrs to DVD-Rs > > for long-term archival. > > Ah! You should take a look at both the dvdrw device (for writing to > DVDs) and at amvault (for copying dumps to other volumes). In 3.2, > amvault will be able to do exactly what you want - pluck the fulls off > vtapes and put them on DVDs. I want things to run from a cron job. We only have a single DVD burner. I only want fulls and *some* incrs on the DVDs, not all of the incrs. Also I am pretty much stuck with 2.5.0, since that is what comes with CentOS... (I don't at this point want to 'experiment' with a bleeding edge self-built package, not for something like this.) > > Then you can adjust your vtape size to something that fits your backup > schedule better. > > Dustin > -- Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar! Deepwoods Software-- Linux Installation and Administration http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database hel...@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk
SV: amreport version 3.1.2
It is reported as failed see below and those parts are added twice - filesystem 66 parts 68. In earlier version it is reported correctly. These dumps were to tapes HANSA-ARKIVE-9, HANSA-ARKIVE-10, HANSA-ARKIVE-11. The next 4 tapes Amanda expects to use are: HANSA-ARKIVE-12, HANSA-ARKIVE-13, HANSA-ARKIVE-14, HANSA-ARKIVE-15. FAILURE DUMP SUMMARY: hansabck /var/amanda/amandatapes/ems1/slot13 lev 0 partial taper: No space left on device hansabck /var/amanda/amandatapes/ems1/slot65 lev 0 partial taper: No space left on device Estimate Time (hrs:min) 0:01 Run Time (hrs:min) 25:51 Dump Time (hrs:min)34:33 34:33 0:00 Output Size (meg) 1292329.1 1292329.10.0 Original Size (meg)1292329.1 1292329.10.0 Avg Compressed Size (%)100.0 100.0-- Filesystems Dumped66 66 0 Avg Dump Rate (k/s) 10639.110639.1-- Tape Time (hrs:min)22:38 22:38 0:00 Tape Size (meg)1248820.2 1248820.20.0 Tape Used (%) 359.6 359.60.0 Filesystems Taped 68 68 0 Parts Taped 68 68 0 Avg Tp Write Rate (k/s) 15690.715690.7-- USAGE BY TAPE: Label Time Size %NbNc HANSA-ARKIVE-9 2:45 430321M 111.52525 HANSA-ARKIVE-10 2:50 440969M 114.22424 HANSA-ARKIVE-11 2:22 398970M 103.31919 >OK .. so what's the problem? Thanks Gunnar Gunnarsson
Re: Confused by amanda's 'planner': why multiple level 0?
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > I picked a 'virtual' tape size to match the capacity of a DVD-R: 4.3Gig, > with the idea of migrating the fulls and the more major incrs to DVD-Rs > for long-term archival. Ah! You should take a look at both the dvdrw device (for writing to DVDs) and at amvault (for copying dumps to other volumes). In 3.2, amvault will be able to do exactly what you want - pluck the fulls off vtapes and put them on DVDs. Then you can adjust your vtape size to something that fits your backup schedule better. Dustin -- Open Source Storage Engineer http://www.zmanda.com
Re: amreport version 3.1.2
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Gunnarsson, Gunnar wrote: > I upgraded Amanda version from 2.6.1 to 3.1.2 and amreport reports: ... > But they are written on the next tape, I'm not using tape spanning. OK .. so what's the problem? Dustin -- Open Source Storage Engineer http://www.zmanda.com
Re: trivial amtape defect
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 09:05:37AM -0400, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote:
> Try this one!
That got it. Probably want to clean up blank lines before commit.
Thanks,
Jon
>
> Jean-Louis
>
> Jon LaBadie wrote:
> >On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 04:24:46PM -0500, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> >>On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> >>>When running "amtape --help" the "usage" message
> >>>is printed twice.
> >>A *real* nitpick! Cool!
> >>
> >>Fix is here:
> >> http://github.com/djmitche/amanda/commit/z12091
> >>
> >>If that works for you, let me know and I will commit. You should be
> >>able to apply it directly to /usr/sbin/amtape.
> >
> >Unfortunately no, the patch had no effect.
> >
> >Jon
>
> diff --git a/server-src/amtape.pl b/server-src/amtape.pl
> index 8312387..c91ade3 100644
> --- a/server-src/amtape.pl
> +++ b/server-src/amtape.pl
> @@ -45,7 +45,9 @@ my %subcommands;
>
> sub usage {
> my ($finished_cb) = @_;
> -$finished_cb ||= sub { exit(1); };
> +
> +$finished_cb = sub { exit(1); } if (!$finished_cb or !(ref($finished_cb)
> eq "CODE"));
> +
>
> print STDERR < Usage: amtape {} [-o configoption]*
>>> End of included message <<<
--
Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
JG Computing
12027 Creekbend Drive (703) 787-0884
Reston, VA 20194 (703) 787-0922 (fax)
Re: trivial amtape defect
Try this one!
Jean-Louis
Jon LaBadie wrote:
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 04:24:46PM -0500, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Jon LaBadie wrote:
When running "amtape --help" the "usage" message
is printed twice.
A *real* nitpick! Cool!
Fix is here:
http://github.com/djmitche/amanda/commit/z12091
If that works for you, let me know and I will commit. You should be
able to apply it directly to /usr/sbin/amtape.
Unfortunately no, the patch had no effect.
Jon
diff --git a/server-src/amtape.pl b/server-src/amtape.pl
index 8312387..c91ade3 100644
--- a/server-src/amtape.pl
+++ b/server-src/amtape.pl
@@ -45,7 +45,9 @@ my %subcommands;
sub usage {
my ($finished_cb) = @_;
-$finished_cb ||= sub { exit(1); };
+
+$finished_cb = sub { exit(1); } if (!$finished_cb or !(ref($finished_cb) eq "CODE"));
+
print STDERR < {} [-o configoption]*
amreport version 3.1.2
Hi, I upgraded Amanda version from 2.6.1 to 3.1.2 and amreport reports: FAILURE DUMP SUMMARY: hansabck /var/amanda/amandatapes/ems1/slot13 lev 0 partial taper: No space left on device hansabck /var/amanda/amandatapes/ems1/slot65 lev 0 partial taper: No space left on device But they are written on the next tape, I'm not using tape spanning. hansabck -ms1/slot13 0 18409 18409-- PARTIAL 865:55 362.8 hansabck -ms1/slot65 0 25100 25100-- PARTIAL 31:30 13599.1 Thanks Gunnar Gunnarsson
