Daily Backup failed
There, The daily backup have been working until tomorrow , seem error message from Amanda is hard to determine or I am lack of experience in this product , anyone can help to explain error below what does it mean? The next tape Amanda expects to use is: 1 new tape. The next new tape already labelled is: DailySet1-140122. FAILURE DUMP SUMMARY: taper: FATAL open3: fork failed: Resource temporarily unavailable at /usr/local/share/perl5/Amanda/Interactivity/email.pm line 118 server.company.com / lev 0 FAILED [Skipping: new disk can't be dumped in degraded mode] server.company.com /boot lev 0 FAILED [Skipping: new disk can't be dumped in degraded mode] server.company.com /home lev 0 FAILED [dump larger than available tape space, 211539940 KB, but cannot incremental dump new disk] -- Best Regards, Phutapong Suanyim
Re: amanda and pigz
You can't use amrestore to directly read the dump from a vtape, use something like: amrestore -r file:/backup/tapepools/DailySet/DailySet-69 For that I would have to point the data-link to the needed tape? That is something I actually wanted to avoid :) or : amtape CONF label DailySet-69 amrestore -r file:/backup/tapepools/DailySet It is a lot easier to use amfetchdump: amfetchdump CONF tobak012.intern.backup.muessi.de /etc 20140128003001 That command obviously needs human interaction and has to be run as user backup? backup@tobak012:~/hoehoe$ amfetchdump DailySet tobak012.intern.backup.muessi.de /etc 20140128 1 volume(s) needed for restoration The following volumes are needed: DailySet-69 Press enter when ready I want to avoid that too. So far running amanda-2.6.1 I used to autorestore via amrestore -p tobak012.intern.backup.muessi.de |tar [option] - ./ which is rather fine in running automatically, unattended and with no need of an amanda-Database. As I understand, amrestore so far only has been a wrapper for dd if=file bs=32k skip=1? Why has this simple functionality been changed? No offense, just wondering :) /mm -- BOFH excuse #244: Your cat tried to eat the mouse.
Strange Problem: Failures if one Windows system down
Hi Amanda Users: I'm experiencing a strange problem with our Amanda (3.3.3) setup. We've been using this for over a year successfully (and have been Amanda users for many years). I recently added some Windows clients to our mix of otherwise all Linux backup targets. 90% of the time, everything works fine. However, if Amanda encounters a problem with one of the Windows clients, e.g. a connection time out because the system is unreachable, all other backups also fail in unusual ways. What I mean is, backups on completely unrelated systems fail. I'm getting planner errors with broken pipes, etc. If I take the unavailable system out of the disklist, dumps succeed. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'd appreciate any insight. Markus --- Markus A. Iturriaga Woelfel, IT Administrator Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of Tennessee Min H. Kao Building, Suite 424 / 1520 Middle Drive Knoxville, TN 37996-2250 mitur...@eecs.utk.edu / (865) 974-3837 http://twitter.com/UTKEECSIT
Re: Strange Problem: Failures if one Windows system down
Hello Markus, yes I can confirm this. We have the same problem with local firewalls blocking port 10080. This breaks multiple other dumps. Dennis On 01/29/14 16:53, Markus Iturriaga Woelfel wrote: Hi Amanda Users: I'm experiencing a strange problem with our Amanda (3.3.3) setup. We've been using this for over a year successfully (and have been Amanda users for many years). I recently added some Windows clients to our mix of otherwise all Linux backup targets. 90% of the time, everything works fine. However, if Amanda encounters a problem with one of the Windows clients, e.g. a connection time out because the system is unreachable, all other backups also fail in unusual ways. What I mean is, backups on completely unrelated systems fail. I'm getting planner errors with broken pipes, etc. If I take the unavailable system out of the disklist, dumps succeed. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'd appreciate any insight. Markus --- Markus A. Iturriaga Woelfel, IT Administrator Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of Tennessee Min H. Kao Building, Suite 424 / 1520 Middle Drive Knoxville, TN 37996-2250 mitur...@eecs.utk.edu / (865) 974-3837 http://twitter.com/UTKEECSIT
Re: Strange Problem: Failures if one Windows system down
Markus, Can you try 3.3.5, I remember fixing a similar bug. Jean-Louis On 01/29/2014 10:53 AM, Markus Iturriaga Woelfel wrote: Hi Amanda Users: I'm experiencing a strange problem with our Amanda (3.3.3) setup. We've been using this for over a year successfully (and have been Amanda users for many years). I recently added some Windows clients to our mix of otherwise all Linux backup targets. 90% of the time, everything works fine. However, if Amanda encounters a problem with one of the Windows clients, e.g. a connection time out because the system is unreachable, all other backups also fail in unusual ways. What I mean is, backups on completely unrelated systems fail. I'm getting planner errors with broken pipes, etc. If I take the unavailable system out of the disklist, dumps succeed. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I'd appreciate any insight. Markus --- Markus A. Iturriaga Woelfel, IT Administrator Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of Tennessee Min H. Kao Building, Suite 424 / 1520 Middle Drive Knoxville, TN 37996-2250 mitur...@eecs.utk.edu / (865) 974-3837 http://twitter.com/UTKEECSIT
Re: Daily Backup failed
On 01/29/2014 01:56 AM, Pank Pond wrote: There, The daily backup have been working until tomorrow , seem error message from Amanda is hard to determine or I am lack of experience in this product , anyone can help to explain error below what does it mean? The next tape Amanda expects to use is: 1 new tape. The next new tape already labelled is: DailySet1-140122. FAILURE DUMP SUMMARY: taper: FATAL open3: fork failed: Resource temporarily unavailable at /usr/local/share/perl5/Amanda/Interactivity/email.pm http://email.pm line 118 What's not clear? The fork system call failed because of 'Resource temporarily unavailable'. Check the fork man page to find all reasons it could return this error. Check system log. Monitor the system while amanda is running to find which resource is exhausted. Jean-Louis server.company.com http://server.company.com / lev 0 FAILED [Skipping: new disk can't be dumped in degraded mode] server.company.com http://server.company.com /boot lev 0 FAILED [Skipping: new disk can't be dumped in degraded mode] server.company.com http://server.company.com /home lev 0 FAILED [dump larger than available tape space, 211539940 KB, but cannot incremental dump new disk] -- Best Regards, Phutapong Suanyim
root vs. user partitions
Hey all,
Still going through my learning curve and I'm studying dumptypes by looking
at the examples.
How/why does amanda differentiate between a root partition and a user
partition?
e.g.
define dumptype root-tar {
global
program GNUTAR
comment root partitions dumped with tar
compress none
index
priority low
}
define dumptype user-tar {
root-tar
comment user partitions dumped with tar
priority medium
}
Other than user-tar depending on the existence of and inheriting root-tar
parameters, and having different priority levels, is there any other
difference between the two? Are DLEs using each treated differently
somehow?
If not, then it seems to me that maybe the comment might be better
explained as:
comment low priority dumped with tar and medium priority dumped with tar
Or am I getting hung up on semantics and I should worry about more
important things?
--
Andrius
Re: root vs. user partitions
I don't treat them any differently. So yes, I think the comment should be
low priority vs medium priority.
I don't make that distinction on my disks.
Deb Baddorf
On Jan 29, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Andrius D. Ilgunas andr...@ilgunas.net
wrote:
Hey all,
Still going through my learning curve and I'm studying dumptypes by looking
at the examples.
How/why does amanda differentiate between a root partition and a user
partition?
e.g.
define dumptype root-tar {
global
program GNUTAR
comment root partitions dumped with tar
compress none
index
priority low
}
define dumptype user-tar {
root-tar
comment user partitions dumped with tar
priority medium
}
Other than user-tar depending on the existence of and inheriting root-tar
parameters, and having different priority levels, is there any other
difference between the two? Are DLEs using each treated differently somehow?
If not, then it seems to me that maybe the comment might be better explained
as:
comment low priority dumped with tar and medium priority dumped with tar
Or am I getting hung up on semantics and I should worry about more important
things?
--
Andrius
Re: root vs. user partitions
Excellent. Thanks for getting rid of that monkey for me!
--
Andrius
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Debra S Baddorf badd...@fnal.gov wrote:
I don't treat them any differently. So yes, I think the comment should
be low priority vs medium priority.
I don't make that distinction on my disks.
Deb Baddorf
On Jan 29, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Andrius D. Ilgunas andr...@ilgunas.net
wrote:
Hey all,
Still going through my learning curve and I'm studying dumptypes by
looking at the examples.
How/why does amanda differentiate between a root partition and a user
partition?
e.g.
define dumptype root-tar {
global
program GNUTAR
comment root partitions dumped with tar
compress none
index
priority low
}
define dumptype user-tar {
root-tar
comment user partitions dumped with tar
priority medium
}
Other than user-tar depending on the existence of and inheriting
root-tar parameters, and having different priority levels, is there any
other difference between the two? Are DLEs using each treated differently
somehow?
If not, then it seems to me that maybe the comment might be better
explained as:
comment low priority dumped with tar and medium priority dumped with
tar
Or am I getting hung up on semantics and I should worry about more
important things?
--
Andrius
Re: root vs. user partitions
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:41:48PM -0800, Andrius D. Ilgunas wrote:
Hey all,
Still going through my learning curve and I'm studying dumptypes by looking
at the examples.
How/why does amanda differentiate between a root partition and a user
partition?
e.g.
define dumptype root-tar {
global
program GNUTAR
comment root partitions dumped with tar
compress none
index
priority low
}
define dumptype user-tar {
root-tar
comment user partitions dumped with tar
priority medium
}
Other than user-tar depending on the existence of and inheriting root-tar
parameters, and having different priority levels, is there any other
difference between the two? Are DLEs using each treated differently
somehow?
Consider the various supplied dumptypes as templates
to be customized by the local amanda administrator (AA).
Rather than focusing on the specific settings in the
supplied dumptypes, consider if you, the AA, feel there
is a reason to use different settings for data on the
root or user partitions.
One reason why the root partition(s) might be considered
distinct is that they are fairly stable and for the most
part could be recreated without backups. In contrast,
much user data would be hard or impossible to recreate.
So you might use a longer dumpcycle for root partitions,
or as in the templates, a lower priority.
If not, then it seems to me that maybe the comment might be better
explained as:
comment low priority dumped with tar and medium priority dumped with tar
You're the AA, add to or change the comments. :)
And if you think they are an improvement, submit
them for inclusion in future releases of amanda.
Jon
--
Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com
11226 South Shore Rd. (703) 787-0688 (H)
Reston, VA 20190 (609) 477-8330 (C)
'no index records...' or Linux -- FreeBSD migration
Hello! I'm migrating from Linux to Free/PC-BSD and have problem amrecovering backup due to 'no index records'. On Linux amrecover works and I did cp-ed (on smaller USB disk) all my / including amanda setup. The difference is that on Linux state files are under /var/lib/amanda/... while on FreeBSD I put them under /var/db/amanda/... and adjusted entries in my amanda.conf config file accordingly. Amanda on Linux is 3.3.3, while the one on FreeBSD is 3.3.2. Both OS-es have same gnutar-1.27. Is the version mismatch cause of 'no index records' and/or some hint what is required to be able to restore my files via amrecover?
