Re: Amrecover:access not allowed.
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Trevor Fraser wrote: > Hello all. > > Last night my boss gave me a test to see if I can recover lost files > before copying everything from his computer to our amanda server( I know > we could backup his computer too, but we've chosen to use samba to store > files on a share here and backup this share). Anyway, so I couldn't do > it, and obviously he isn't impressed. > > Anyway, the problem comes when I try 'amrecover' from the / directory. > The error is: > > [root@merlin /]# amrecover > AMRECOVER Version 2.4.2p2. Contacting server on localhost . . . > 220 merlin AMANDA index server (2.4.2p2) ready. > 500 Access not allowed: [ access as amanda not allowed from >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] amandahostsauth failed > [ root@merlin /]# > > My amanda dumpuser is root, and in amanda, amandaidx and amidxtape are > user = amanda. My .amandahost looks like this: > > merlin.systematic.lanroot > merlin.systematic.lanamanda > localhost.localdomainamanda > > The file belong to root:root and has read and write privileges for the > user owner only. > > I've read the FAQ's and saw a similar problem, but with regard to > amcheck. I can amcheck and amdump fine. What is the next step in > troubleshooting? Same principle applies. If you see "Access as whatever not allowed from foo@bar", add "bar foo" to .amandahosts. In this case "localhost.localdomain root". -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Numeric uids
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Nate Eldredge wrote: > Summary: Is there a way to make amanda pass arbitrary options to tar, in > particular "--numeric-owner"? Well, I've got a couple of answers. They both involve recompiling, which I was hoping to avoid (I'm using a Debian package, and it will make things more complicated for the next person who upgrades amanda). I wish there were a dumptype option or something for --numeric-owner. Actually, it seems like this would be useful in general. Suppose you are backing up a root filesystem with gnutar. If you need to restore after a complete disk failure, you will have a problem. You have symbolic usernames in the tar file, so you can't restore it without the correct /etc/passwd in place. But /etc/passwd is inside the tarfile. And you can't really just install /etc/passwd first and the rest later, because at this point your root filesystem is probably on your rescue CD. --numeric-owner would avoid this problem. Some would say you should just use dump on root filesystems, but that has other ramifications, and IMHO amanda shouldn't force the issue. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Numeric uids
Summary: Is there a way to make amanda pass arbitrary options to tar, in particular "--numeric-owner"? We have a Netapps file server which serves NFS several Solaris boxes. All the Solaris boxes have a common /etc/passwd. We want to back up the files from the server with amanda. Now the netapps machine only exports its files via NFS (it has a proprietary OS, and we can't run backups on it directly). So we are mounting its shares on our amanda server (a Debian Linux box). But it isn't very practical to try to give the server the same /etc/passwd as the Solaris boxes (system users are different, for instance). One way we could deal with this is to give tar the --numeric-owner option, so it will just record the UIDs numerically, and it won't matter what the server's /etc/passwd contains. But I can't find a way to do this. Is there one? Thanks in advance. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Auto-eject tapes
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Erik van der Meulen wrote: > Funny, if I do something like: > > amdump default & mt -f /dev/nst0 eject I think he meant && instead of &. && will execute the second command only if the first succeeds. & will run the first command in the background and immediately start the second, which is clearly wrong here. > > The tape ejects first and Amanda gives an error 'no tape found'. > I run Debian Linux 2.2 -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: error message in my report
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, brian wrote: > ? /dev/hda2: Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read > while converting > directory #122401 > ? Have you fsck'ed this filesystem lately? That seems like some piece of the disk is not where the filesystem thinks it is. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another "Amanda to backup a NFS mounted FS question".
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Jody McCluggage wrote: > Hello all, > > I am having a problem slightly similiar. I am trying to back up some > directories on an NFS mounted drive using gnu tar but I am running into > permission problems. Is there a way for me set the NFS mount so that it > allows a program running with root permision on the back up system have root > privledges on the NFS mount drive? Your NFS server has to allow it. Read its manual. Usually an option like `root=backup_machine' has to be set in a configuration file. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using Amanda to backup a NFS mounted FS.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Marvin W. Nachatelo wrote: > > Can Amanda be used to backup an NFS mounted filesystem ? I have a > Network Appliance > box and have mounted the exported filesystem to a mount point on the > Amanda server > The Sun is running Solaris 7. Oh, another thing: If the filesystem is automounted, you'll want to use tar 1.13.18 or later, available from alpha.gnu.org. Otherwise, incrementals won't work right (tar will think that every file has changed and must be backed up again). -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using Amanda to backup a NFS mounted FS.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Marvin W. Nachatelo wrote: > > Can Amanda be used to backup an NFS mounted filesystem ? I have a > Network Appliance > box and have mounted the exported filesystem to a mount point on the > Amanda server > The Sun is running Solaris 7. Yes, it's working fine here. You just have to use tar. Obviously you can't use dump, because you don't have access to the raw disk (and even if you did, Solaris wouldn't have any idea what to do with it). Another hint: If you have snapshots enabled, you will probably want to exclude them (amanda documentation explains how to exclude directories). > > The error : > > FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY: > sake /netapp1/test lev 0 FAILED [disk /netapp1/test offline on > sake?] > > Please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is customary to specify this in your mail headers (either From: or Reply-To) so that respondents don't have to type it manually (and maybe forget to do it). -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Different locations for tar
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, John R. Jackson wrote: > >> For now, how about: > >> > >> ln -s /bin/tar /usr/local/bin/gtar-for-amanda > >> > >> on that client? > > > >Yeah, that's not a problem. It's just that we would have to recompile > >amanda on that client, which its owner would rather avoid. > > I thought the symlink would avoid the recompile since both names would > be available. However I think I got the problem mixed up. The problem is > that amverify **on the server** sees /bin/tar in the header and doesn't > deal with it because it doesn't match what it thinks tar is supposed > to be. > > And since you gave the server a "strange" name for tar (the two basenames > do not match), I don't think 2.4.2 is going to help either. > > In the doonefile() function in amverify, there is a long string of if/elif > statements that figure out what program to use. I think you'll need to > add another one like this before the first reference to $DUMP: > > elif [ X"$TAR" != X"" -a X"$2" = X"/bin/tar" ]; then > CMD=$TAR > ARGS="tf -" Yeah. Actually, I was planning something on the order of a substring match for `tar'. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Different locations for tar
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, John R. Jackson wrote: > >My server was configured with > >--with-gnutar=/usr/local/bin/gtar-for-amanda. However, one of the clients > >apparently has /bin/tar configured. Both are the same version of GNU > >tar. However, once a backup is made, the server can't amverify it, since > >it doesn't know what "/bin/tar" is. ... > >Is there any way to tell amanda that the two are the same? ... > > As Alexandre mentioned, the problem with amverify is improved with 2.4.2. > > For now, how about: > > ln -s /bin/tar /usr/local/bin/gtar-for-amanda > > on that client? Yeah, that's not a problem. It's just that we would have to recompile amanda on that client, which its owner would rather avoid. But it should be easy to make amverify a little less picky, which I'll do on the server. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: backup on linux/win98 client
yOn Thu, 9 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > I have a new laptop with dual boot (Win98 and SuSE Linux 7.0). I'm > trying to backup this client with amanda version 2.4.1p1. The linux > side > itself is working excellent; but I would also like to backup the /win > partition where the windows file system is mounted. I get the > following > message in sendsize.debug: > > ... > calculating for amname '/win', dirname '/win' > sendsize: getting size via dump for /win level 0 > sendsize: running "/sbin/dump 0sf 1048576 - /dev/hda1" > running /usr/amanda/libexec/killpgrp > DUMP: Date of this level 0 dump: Thu Nov 9 00:05:56 2000 > DUMP: Date of last level 0 dump: the epoch > DUMP: Dumping /dev/hda1 (/win) to standard output > DUMP: Label: none > /dev/hda1: Bad magic number in super-block while opening filesystem > . > (no size line match in above dump output) > . > asking killpgrp to terminate > sendsize: pid 4458 finish time Thu Nov 9 00:05:57 2000 > > Looks like the vfat filesystem is not recognized by amanda. Is there a > way to get this working? dump doesn't support vfat, which you'd expect (dump has to be intimate with the physical filesystem, and linux dump is written for ext2). You can still use tar, though, which is explained in the docs. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Different locations for tar
My server was configured with --with-gnutar=/usr/local/bin/gtar-for-amanda. However, one of the clients apparently has /bin/tar configured. Both are the same version of GNU tar. However, once a backup is made, the server can't amverify it, since it doesn't know what "/bin/tar" is. I suspect this will also cause trouble if I should want to restore files from that client to a different machine. Is there any way to tell amanda that the two are the same? The client is using a pre-packaged amanda and its owner would prefer to keep it that way, if possible. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple tape drives
On 7 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 5, 2000, Nate Eldredge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We have two tape drives, one big and one small. > > > My current plan is to create two configurations, "Daily" and "Weekly". > > How about two configurations with separate sets of disks/hosts to back > up? Because we don't have enough tapes. None of the really important stuff will fit on the small tapes, and we don't have enough big tapes to go back very far in time (they're expensive). Under this scheme, each big tape represents an additional week of history, rather than just a day. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newbie seeks to offend list (not really)
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Dan Browning wrote: > I'm really new to Amanda, and I'm not trying to offend everyone, but I > probably will. Will someone please take the time to help me design my > amanda.conf file? I've read the Backup Central docs on amanda > (http://www.backupcentral.com/amanda-11.html), and some other docs, > but it's too deep for me. The most efficient way is to go through the sample amanda.conf file and change it to suit your needs. It's well commented. I don't have the time or the inclination to design your configuration for you, but if you try it yourself, and post here about specific problems when you get stuck, people (perhaps including me) are quite likely to help. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Multiple tape drives
We have two tape drives, one big and one small. We'd like to be able to use them both to back up the same set of stuff, but full dumps will not fit on the small tapes. My current plan is to create two configurations, "Daily" and "Weekly". "Daily" will run daily, and dump with "strategy nofull" to the small tapes. "Weekly" will run weekly, with a short dumpcycle (to force frequent full dumps) to the large tapes. I realize this contravenes the Amanda philosophy that "you shouldn't care when the fulls and incrementals happen", and seems like a reversion to traditional schemes. But I don't see a better way to do it. This makes recovery slightly more awkward, as you must decide which set (or both) to recover from, but it still seems to work. Does anyone see any other problems with this, or know a better way to handle the situation? -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gradually adding resourses to back up
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Eric Wadsworth wrote: > I'm starting small, only backing up a few machines. I've got to do a demo > for my boss, then I'll be adding a bunch more machines. Can I just > haphazardly add lines to my disklist file, or should I do something > special? That's worked fine for me. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnutar only backing up directories
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, John R. Jackson wrote: > >... I have noted that the amount of > >data backed up as reported by Amanda, though very close in size, is > >consistently a bit less than what 'du -sk' reports. This is a bit > >disturbing. One always wants to see the backup image, if not be exact, > >be at least a bit larger in size than the source image. Can anyone > >offer an explanation for this, ie. should I be concerned? [...] > The third (and probably best) possibility is that tar writes files in > units of 512 bytes. So if you have lots of short files (or lots that > fall in the lower half of 1 KByte boundaries), they will take less space > than rounding up all the sizes to KBytes. In fact, some filesystems have a larger blocksize than 1 Kb. On Linux, for instance, many distributions use 4K as the default, which would increase this effect. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Full backups without --listed-incremental?
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Joe Rhett wrote: > Just out of curiosity -- just asking because you didn't mention it -- is > there a reason why "amadmin config force hostname .." won't work for your > needs? AIUI (this may be wrong), "force" just makes the next backup in the cycle be all full dumps, and then things continue from there. This is not what I want. I want to write it to a tape that isn't part of the established tape cycle, and I don't want any future dumps to depend on it (i.e. no incrementals from that tape). So it really does want to be completely independent, I think. > > On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:22:08PM -0800, Nate Eldredge wrote: > > A question, tangentially related to an earlier one of mine. > > > > I want to do an occasional run of amanda with only full backups, which > > should be independent of the normal cycle. (It's for offsite storage.) > > I've set up an amanda configuration for it. I already know that the > > listed-incremental directory can't be set per-configuration, and I know > > the ways suggested to work around it: make the directory a symlink that > > moves appropriately, or have N different amanda installations. I am going > > to have to make a couple of amanda installations already, for other > > rotations. But I don't want to have to have a special installation just > > for this one. Is there some set of options that will prevent amanda from > > using --listed-incremental at all? A casual glance at the source implies > > not, but I'm not sure. For instance, it seems that `record no' should > > have this effect. Unfortunately, in my environment it's hard to > > experiment without interfering with the existing backups. > > > > Also, here's a couple of wishlist items. > > > > - Make listed-incremental dirs a per-configuration setting. > > > > - Make amandad able to talk to more than one amdump at a time without > > getting confused (as the docs imply is now the case). > > > > It looks like these would require protocol changes. If I were > > hypothetically to work on implementing these, would there be any official > > interest? > > > > -- > > Nate Eldredge > > HMC CS Staff > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > Joe Rhett Chief Technology Officer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ISite Services, Inc. > > PGP keys and contact information: http://www.noc.isite.net/Staff/ > -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Full backups without --listed-incremental?
A question, tangentially related to an earlier one of mine. I want to do an occasional run of amanda with only full backups, which should be independent of the normal cycle. (It's for offsite storage.) I've set up an amanda configuration for it. I already know that the listed-incremental directory can't be set per-configuration, and I know the ways suggested to work around it: make the directory a symlink that moves appropriately, or have N different amanda installations. I am going to have to make a couple of amanda installations already, for other rotations. But I don't want to have to have a special installation just for this one. Is there some set of options that will prevent amanda from using --listed-incremental at all? A casual glance at the source implies not, but I'm not sure. For instance, it seems that `record no' should have this effect. Unfortunately, in my environment it's hard to experiment without interfering with the existing backups. Also, here's a couple of wishlist items. - Make listed-incremental dirs a per-configuration setting. - Make amandad able to talk to more than one amdump at a time without getting confused (as the docs imply is now the case). It looks like these would require protocol changes. If I were hypothetically to work on implementing these, would there be any official interest? -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: testing mail to:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Denise Ives wrote: > the mail to: on the amanda.conf file- > > Is there a command besides amdump - to test this? > > org "daily" # your organization name for reports > mailto "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" #space separated list of operators at your site I think amverify will send mail to this address. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tape position
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: > First off, I'd like to thank the authors/maintainers of amanda for the > wonderful package that she is. Using the available documentation and > lurking on this list, my planning and testing phase was fairly quick and > painless, and I'm ready to go into production. > > But I do have one minor question. Does it matter where the tape is > at the beginning of an amdump run? (I don't think it does, but better > safe than sorry...) My plan is to run an amcheck at 4 P.M. every > (week)day, and then amdump that night (all out of amanda's crontab). Do I > need to rewind after the amcheck, or will amdump not care that the tape is > positioned at the end of the amlabel? I don't know for sure. But presumably, since amdump needs to read the label, it would have to rewind the tape first, so it shouldn't matter. -- Nate Eldredge HMC CS Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
