Re: LTO2 Drive / Linux anyone ?
Guy Dallaire schreef: We're curently using a 5 slot DLT IV tape changer. I'm getting an increased amount of errors and the tape drive is quite old now. We're considering the purchase of s single LTO2 drive. We're using amanda 2.4.5 on centos 4.2 without problem Kernel is 2.6.9-22.0.1.ELsmp Gnu Tar is 1.14 I have exactly the same (yes the gnutar 1.14 of CentOS 4.2 has the sparse file bug solution backported). I would like to know if any of you is using a similar OS for the amanda server, having succes with LTO2 drives and the drive manufacturer/model you are using. I am since 3 months now the lucky user of an HP448 (LTO Ultrium2). -- Paul Bijnens, XplanationTel +32 16 397.511 Technologielaan 21 bus 2, B-3001 Leuven, BELGIUMFax +32 16 397.512 http://www.xplanation.com/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** * I think I've got the hang of it now: exit, ^D, ^C, ^\, ^Z, ^Q, F6, * * quit, ZZ, :q, :q!, M-Z, ^X^C, logoff, logout, close, bye, /bye, * * stop, end, F3, ~., ^]c, +++ ATH, disconnect, halt, abort, hangup, * * PF4, F20, ^X^X, :D::D, KJOB, F14-f-e, F8-e, kill -1 $$, shutdown, * * kill -9 1, Alt-F4, Ctrl-Alt-Del, AltGr-NumLock, Stop-A, ...* * ... "Are you sure?" ... YES ... Phew ... I'm out * ***
client times out
We're running amanda-2.4.5p1 server on a white box under debian/sarge. We're backing up from 8 hosts without any problems beyond an occasional client timeout. Working clients are running debian/sarge, RHAS 2.1, and AIX 5, and the same 2.4.5p1 release of amanda. We have a CentOS 4.1 client that is failing consistently with client-side timeouts. The client starts, dumps 35 MB to the server, then times out. The partition being dumped is around 1 GB. The time out occurs when iptables on the client is turned on, and also when it is turned off. Gtar is 1.15.1. Timeout messages in /tmp/amanda/sendbackup.* on the client look like this: --- sendbackup: debug 1 pid 18885 ruid 518 euid 518: start at Fri Feb 10 02:20:02 2006 [snip] sendbackup: time 0.001: got all connections [snip] sendbackup-gnutar: time 0.062: doing level 0 dump from date: 1970-01-01 0:00:00 GMT [snip] sendbackup-gnutar: time 0.064: /usr/local/amanda/2.4.5p1/libexec/runtar: pid 18889 sendbackup: time 958.026: index tee cannot write [Connection timed out] sendbackup: time 958.026: pid 18887 finish time Fri Feb 10 02:36:00 2006 sendbackup: time 958.026: 125: strange(?): sendbackup: index tee cannot write [Connection timed out] sendbackup: time 958.028: error [/usr/local/amanda/2.4.5p1/bin/gtar got signal 13] sendbackup: time 958.028: pid 18885 finish time Fri Feb 10 02:36:00 2006 --- We reduced the keepalive interval on both client and server but didn't see a change. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Roy Heimbach -- Roy Heimbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> / 505-277-8348 User Services / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / University of New Mexico
RE: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 at 2:56pm, Lengyel, Florian wrote Yes, it seems to have difficulty recognizing the second SCSI tape drive if you have two. So one of my Spectralogic 2K tape drives is languishing, while the other has all the fun. Err, I have a 2 drive library on centos-4 with no problems. On my system, though, each drive (and the robot) have separate SCSI IDs. I imagine that folks have problems on systems with drives on the same SCSI ID but separate LUNs, and that can be made to work too. -- Joshua Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University
Re: Rebuilding amanda for a new tar version
On Friday 10 February 2006 16:28, Guy Dallaire wrote: >I've just discovered that tar 1.14 might actually be buggy. On many of >my linux boxes (clients and server) I have gnu tar 1.14 or 1.13.25 > >I'm understanding that I should instead download the latest tar >version (or 1.15) and install this in /usr/local/bin and use this >instead of the system's default in /usr/bin > >That's what I did for my solaris boxes. Thats what I did for 1.15-1 here too. Works a treat. >Now, amanda is configured and running just fine. > >I will only have to redo the config using >--with-gnutar=/usr/local/bin/tar on my linux box and then re-make >amanda using the same parameter I used originally. > >The question I have is: > >When I will do the "make install" at the end, will it overwrite my >amanda configuration files and disklists etc ? No. I've been makeing and installing the latest snapshot of whats now the 2.4.5 series for several years now, and its never touched my existing configs. But you will need to run an extra ldconfig after the install to get all the linkages right. And occasionally go into the library dirs amanda uses and clean out the older versions just to save drive space. >Thanks You're welcome. -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Re: Rebuilding amanda for a new tar version
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:28:52PM -0500, Guy Dallaire wrote: > I've just discovered that tar 1.14 might actually be buggy. On many of > my linux boxes (clients and server) I have gnu tar 1.14 or 1.13.25 > > I'm understanding that I should instead download the latest tar > version (or 1.15) and install this in /usr/local/bin and use this > instead of the system's default in /usr/bin > I will only have to redo the config using > --with-gnutar=/usr/local/bin/tar on my linux box and then re-make > amanda using the same parameter I used originally. Alternatively, you could just rebuild the tar RPM for the new version, upgrade it, and leave Amanda alone. > The question I have is: > > When I will do the "make install" at the end, will it overwrite my > amanda configuration files and disklists etc ? No, make install doesn't put anything in the config directory.
Re: LTO2 Drive / Linux anyone ?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:30:08PM -0500, Gene Heskett enlightened us: > >We're curently using a 5 slot DLT IV tape changer. I'm getting an > >increased amount of errors and the tape drive is quite old now. > > > >We're considering the purchase of s single LTO2 drive. > > > >We're using amanda 2.4.5 on centos 4.2 without problem > > > >Kernel is 2.6.9-22.0.1.ELsmp > > > >Gnu Tar is 1.14 > > That 1.14-* is a zinger for most folks, use 1.15-1 or 1.13-19 or 1.13-25 > for best results. > The 1.14 included in RHEL4 should be ok. See http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html When dealing with RHEL (or CentOS, WB, Tao, etc.), version numbers are not enough to determine problems. That being said, rebuilding the 1.15.1 srpm from Fedora works fine as well. Matt -- Matt Hyclak Department of Mathematics Department of Social Work Ohio University (740) 593-1263
Re: LTO2 Drive / Linux anyone ?
On Friday 10 February 2006 15:47, Guy Dallaire wrote: >We're curently using a 5 slot DLT IV tape changer. I'm getting an >increased amount of errors and the tape drive is quite old now. > >We're considering the purchase of s single LTO2 drive. > >We're using amanda 2.4.5 on centos 4.2 without problem > >Kernel is 2.6.9-22.0.1.ELsmp > >Gnu Tar is 1.14 That 1.14-* is a zinger for most folks, use 1.15-1 or 1.13-19 or 1.13-25 for best results. >I would like to know if any of you is using a similar OS for the >amanda server, having succes with LTO2 drives and the drive >manufacturer/model you are using. > >Thanks -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Rebuilding amanda for a new tar version
I've just discovered that tar 1.14 might actually be buggy. On many of my linux boxes (clients and server) I have gnu tar 1.14 or 1.13.25 I'm understanding that I should instead download the latest tar version (or 1.15) and install this in /usr/local/bin and use this instead of the system's default in /usr/bin That's what I did for my solaris boxes. Now, amanda is configured and running just fine. I will only have to redo the config using --with-gnutar=/usr/local/bin/tar on my linux box and then re-make amanda using the same parameter I used originally. The question I have is: When I will do the "make install" at the end, will it overwrite my amanda configuration files and disklists etc ? Thanks
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Friday 10 February 2006 15:16, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote: >2006/2/10, Lengyel, Florian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Yes, it seems to have difficulty recognizing the second SCSI tape >> drive if you have two. So one of my Spectralogic 2K tape drives is >> languishing, while the other has all the fun. > >I have 1 tape drive + 6 tape slots, but they still advised me to use a >more recent kernel. > >Strangely mtx was not a requirement for BRU, only mt. I do have it >installed anyway and I certainly will need it for Amanda. > I wonder if this might be related to not having the option to scan all luns turned on in the kernel config? With that turned on, and turning that on is what got me to build my first kernel many years ago now, I had no problem recognizeing all the scsi devices in the system way back then, but I have no scsi stuff left now. >-- >Enrico Indiogine >Parasol Laboratory >Texas A&M University > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >979-845-3937 -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Re: LTO2 Drive / Linux anyone ?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:47:51PM -0500, Guy Dallaire enlightened us: > We're curently using a 5 slot DLT IV tape changer. I'm getting an > increased amount of errors and the tape drive is quite old now. > > We're considering the purchase of s single LTO2 drive. > > We're using amanda 2.4.5 on centos 4.2 without problem > > Kernel is 2.6.9-22.0.1.ELsmp > > Gnu Tar is 1.14 > > I would like to know if any of you is using a similar OS for the > amanda server, having succes with LTO2 drives and the drive > manufacturer/model you are using. > I'm using RHEL3 at the moment with 2.4.5p1 and a Centrance (now Quantum) 1U rackmount LTO2 drive. It's got room for a second drive in it and only cost about $2200. Way better than the $3500 HP wanted for a refurbed, 90-day warranty to replace the LTO1 drive that died a month out of warranty. The speed is a little slow on the 1U, but they have a 2U that is faster. Matt -- Matt Hyclak Department of Mathematics Department of Social Work Ohio University (740) 593-1263
LTO2 Drive / Linux anyone ?
We're curently using a 5 slot DLT IV tape changer. I'm getting an increased amount of errors and the tape drive is quite old now. We're considering the purchase of s single LTO2 drive. We're using amanda 2.4.5 on centos 4.2 without problem Kernel is 2.6.9-22.0.1.ELsmp Gnu Tar is 1.14 I would like to know if any of you is using a similar OS for the amanda server, having succes with LTO2 drives and the drive manufacturer/model you are using. Thanks
RE: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
Title: RE: Migrating to Amanda, question 2 CentOS does work for me, but I had to add the following to /etc/rc.d/rc.local # create sg devices and turn hardware spectralogic hardware compression off modprobe sg ln -s /dev/sg0 /dev/changer mt -f /dev/nst0 compression 0 mt -f /dev/nst1 compression 0 amcleanup Daily If you don't do the first two statements, you won't have the device needed for mtx. The mt statements that turn off compression are worth a small fortune in consulting fees: I defy anyone to find the value 0 in the man pages. Actually you can find it in the man pages. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Salvatore Enrico Indiogine Sent: Fri 2/10/2006 3:16 PM To: amanda-users@amanda.org Subject: Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2 2006/2/10, Lengyel, Florian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Yes, it seems to have difficulty recognizing the second SCSI tape drive if > you have two. So one of my Spectralogic 2K tape drives is languishing, > while the other has all the fun. I have 1 tape drive + 6 tape slots, but they still advised me to use a more recent kernel. Strangely mtx was not a requirement for BRU, only mt. I do have it installed anyway and I certainly will need it for Amanda. -- Enrico Indiogine Parasol Laboratory Texas A&M University [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-845-3937
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
2006/2/10, Lengyel, Florian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Yes, it seems to have difficulty recognizing the second SCSI tape drive if > you have two. So one of my Spectralogic 2K tape drives is languishing, > while the other has all the fun. I have 1 tape drive + 6 tape slots, but they still advised me to use a more recent kernel. Strangely mtx was not a requirement for BRU, only mt. I do have it installed anyway and I certainly will need it for Amanda. -- Enrico Indiogine Parasol Laboratory Texas A&M University [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-845-3937
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:40:38PM -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain enlightened us: > >On Friday 10 February 2006 11:42, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote: > >>tar: > >>CentSO tar-1.14-8.RHEL4 FC4 tar-1.15.1-11.FC4 > > > >CentOS tar-1.14.* is known bad, I'm using 1.15-1 myself, with 1.13-25 > >installed as a fallback available with a rebuild/reinstall of amanda, a > >6 minute job typically... > > Actually, centos-4's tar seems to work just fine. They recently fixed a > sparse files bug in it, and it seems quite happy. I've recently done a > few multi-TB backup/restores with it with no problem. > > Or is there something I'm missing? > > As to centos vs. FC, I prefer centos if only for the longer life cycle and > the feeling that it's a bit more tested than FC. That being said, I've > never run FC, so take that all with a grain of salt. I'll second Joshua here and point you to http://www.math.ohiou.edu/~hyclak/casit/amanda/ I recommend getting the lastest 2.4.5pX source RPM from Fedora and rebuilding it on your CentOS machine. That way you can specify tape servers and default configurations with options to rpmbuild. Matt -- Matt Hyclak Department of Mathematics Department of Social Work Ohio University (740) 593-1263
RE: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
Title: RE: Migrating to Amanda, question 2 Yes, it seems to have difficulty recognizing the second SCSI tape drive if you have two. So one of my Spectralogic 2K tape drives is languishing, while the other has all the fun. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Salvatore Enrico Indiogine Sent: Fri 2/10/2006 2:30 PM To: amanda-users@amanda.org Subject: Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2 Thanks for all the good feedback. I just remembered reading that the 2.6.9 Linux kernel provided by CentOS/RHEL4 has problems with SCSI. That was on a communication from BRU: http://www.bru.com/Server-Linux-Require.html So, it is Fedora4 after all. Enrico
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
Thanks for all the good feedback. I just remembered reading that the 2.6.9 Linux kernel provided by CentOS/RHEL4 has problems with SCSI. That was on a communication from BRU: http://www.bru.com/Server-Linux-Require.html So, it is Fedora4 after all. Enrico
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Friday 10 February 2006 13:40, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: >On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 at 1:22pm, Gene Heskett wrote > >> On Friday 10 February 2006 11:42, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote: >>> tar: >>> CentSO tar-1.14-8.RHEL4 FC4 tar-1.15.1-11.FC4 >> >> CentOS tar-1.14.* is known bad, I'm using 1.15-1 myself, with >> 1.13-25 installed as a fallback available with a rebuild/reinstall >> of amanda, a 6 minute job typically... > >Actually, centos-4's tar seems to work just fine. They recently fixed > a sparse files bug in it, and it seems quite happy. I've recently > done a few multi-TB backup/restores with it with no problem. > >Or is there something I'm missing? Theres a difference in the contents of the header of its output files. OTIH, maybe it can recover with then in place, but other tars cannot. I haven't personally tried to confirm that. Compare their output list when asked for a table of contents of the backup. I think you'll see the difference as 1.14 will have a double sized string of numbers prepended to the filename it outputs. Or at least it did here, and several others also reported problems with it. The one thing I was surprised is that tar development is usually rather glacier like, but 1.14 only lasted a few weeks on the gnu.org ftp site. Something HAD to prompt that knee jerk reaction pace other than global warming. :-) >As to centos vs. FC, I prefer centos if only for the longer life cycle > and the feeling that it's a bit more tested than FC. That being > said, I've never run FC, so take that all with a grain of salt. -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 at 1:22pm, Gene Heskett wrote On Friday 10 February 2006 11:42, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote: tar: CentSO tar-1.14-8.RHEL4 FC4 tar-1.15.1-11.FC4 CentOS tar-1.14.* is known bad, I'm using 1.15-1 myself, with 1.13-25 installed as a fallback available with a rebuild/reinstall of amanda, a 6 minute job typically... Actually, centos-4's tar seems to work just fine. They recently fixed a sparse files bug in it, and it seems quite happy. I've recently done a few multi-TB backup/restores with it with no problem. Or is there something I'm missing? As to centos vs. FC, I prefer centos if only for the longer life cycle and the feeling that it's a bit more tested than FC. That being said, I've never run FC, so take that all with a grain of salt. -- Joshua Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
On Friday 10 February 2006 11:42, Salvatore Enrico Indiogine wrote: >At this point my situation is pretty hopeless and I need to >accellerate the BRU -> Amanda migration, so question 2: > >CentOS 4.2 or Fedora4? Essentially this doesn't matter, but see below. >Kernel: >CentOS 2.6.9-22 FC4 2.6.15-1.1831_FC4 Again, doesn't matter, I've used every linus kernel since forever, currently 2.6.16-rc2. >tar: >CentSO tar-1.14-8.RHEL4 FC4 tar-1.15.1-11.FC4 CentOS tar-1.14.* is known bad, I'm using 1.15-1 myself, with 1.13-25 installed as a fallback available with a rebuild/reinstall of amanda, a 6 minute job typically... >Amanda: >CentOS amanda-2.4.4p3-1FC4 > amanda-backup_server-2.5.0b2-1.fc4 Using 2.4.5p1, most recent snapshot, no problems of note. No experience with 2.5.0 yet here. For reasons of controlling the configuration, I have never tried to use an rpm/deb of it, always built at least the server from tarballs. However one recently added debian based client is running the debs of an older 2.4.4 with no problems. YMMV, note the caps. > >dump/restore: >CentOS dump-0.4b39-3.EL4.2 FC4 dump-0.4b40-2 Again, it doesn't matter because you should be using tar, not dump. But thats a personal opinion, some are using dump/restore, but tar gives you much more fine-grained control over what you are doing. >Thanks! You're welcome, I hope this helps. >-- >Enrico Indiogine >Parasol Laboratory >Texas A&M University > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >979-845-3937 -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Re: Migrating to Amanda, question 2
2006/2/10, Ian Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I recommend Fedora for Amanda, and Debian in general, but you're opening a can > of worms by asking people's opinion on the best distro. :-) Thanks for the advise. I was leaning towards FC4 myself because of the latest tar version. I read that tar 1.14 has problems, while 1.13 and 1.15 do not. I agree about the "choose distro = can of worms". That is why I only gave 2 options ;-) We are a RedHat shop, thus we can only migrate to CentOS/Scientific Linux and Fedora. I find it interesting that Fedora4 will install the 2.5.0 beta of Amanda. -- Enrico Indiogine Parasol Laboratory Texas A&M University [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-845-3937
Migrating to Amanda, question 2
At this point my situation is pretty hopeless and I need to accellerate the BRU -> Amanda migration, so question 2: CentOS 4.2 or Fedora4? Kernel: CentOS 2.6.9-22 FC4 2.6.15-1.1831_FC4 tar: CentSO tar-1.14-8.RHEL4 FC4 tar-1.15.1-11.FC4 Amanda: CentOS amanda-2.4.4p3-1FC4amanda-backup_server-2.5.0b2-1.fc4 dump/restore: CentOS dump-0.4b39-3.EL4.2 FC4 dump-0.4b40-2 Thanks! -- Enrico Indiogine Parasol Laboratory Texas A&M University [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-845-3937
