Re: amrecover fails *again*
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 16:23, Richard B. Tilley (Brad) wrote: >Thanks for the smart response. > >I'll just stick with my manual method of restoring as I don't have > time to change a src file (that I don't currently have) and > recompile. Besides, my method works... it's amanda's method that > doesn't work, but no one seems to care about that. First off, Jon was being nice IMO, and the chances are very, very good that what he wrote will indeed fix your problem. FYI, probably 98% of the amanda users on this list DO build from source, and that source is about 5 minutes away on a 56k line, see the link that leads of Jean-Louis's page on a umontreal.ca machine, on http://www.amanda.org quite a ways down the page. He keeps the most recent snapshots all tar-balled up and ready to go. However, I've observed that probably 25% of the messages here were generated by someone who downloaded a set of rpms of amanda someplace, and they may, or may not have been, compiled with the same options one normally uses when compiling amanda. That BTW, is about a 3 minute job on this 1400mhz athlon. You can't install the rpms using your favorite gui much faster than that. >Read The Fucking Manual punk. My balls are bigger than yours punk > so don't bother me. Do what the error message says dog-breath > before I squash you with my 64-bit souped-up, compiled the > compiler ... yadah yadah yadah Oh, my. Does your mother know you use such language? If she does know, I'd wager she isn't the least bit proud of it. One should always keep in mind that old adage that says 'its not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog that counts'. >Now, I wonder why Open Source and Free Software aren't more main > stream? With an attitude like what you are displaying here, how did you ever get yourself convinced you should even try anything with an opensource label on it? To me, thats the 64k$ question. Opensource is an attitude, and you obviously don't have it. Opensource is a willingness to dig in and fix it if your are capable of it when its not running to your likeing. If you aren't capable of it, then at least give the instructions offered a chance to fix the problem before you come in here and bad-mouth someone who is honestly trying to help. Who knows, while walking around in the code looking for where Jon said to increase that timeout, you might actually (heaven forbid) learn something! Or have you, with a fresh sheepskin on the wall, now decided you know it all? Funny thing, a holder of a very prestigious sheepskin, and publisher of a rag pretty much delegated to the embedded scene once told me that at the end of the day, the most important sheepskin was the one you slept on. Opensource is a mailing list such as this, where you can ask questions, and get answers within hours, sometimes minutes, and certainly 6 months faster that you can from Redmond, and do it without having to pony up another $200 for the latest upgrade to their bugfarm. Opensource is the willingness to share with any and all, the fruits of the work you do simply because you're proud of your work, thereby making the whole scene a better place to live. >On Wednesday 20 November 2002 03:27 pm, Jon LaBadie wrote: >> Did you try what the message suggests? >> That is generally a good first attempt. -- Cheers, Gene AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M 99.19% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Re: amrecover fails *again*
--On Wednesday, November 20, 2002 16:23:45 -0500 "Richard B. Tilley (Brad)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the smart response. I'll just stick with my manual method of restoring as I don't have time to change a src file (that I don't currently have) and recompile. Besides, my method works... it's amanda's method that doesn't work, but no one seems to care about that. Read The Fucking Manual punk. My balls are bigger than yours punk so don't bother me. Do what the error message says dog-breath before I squash you with my 64-bit souped-up, compiled the compiler ... yadah yadah yadah There are an amazing number of people on this list (and others) that _haven't_ checked the obvious (to some) error messsages and followed the suggestions. None of the usual responders on this list are 'psychic friends' and don't know anything about a poster's intelligence, skill level, or familiarity with their OS, tape drives, changers, Amanda, etc. The best debugging starts with eliminating the obvious first and then working to more and more obscure possibilities. If someone doesn't say exactly what they have tried and what the results were, all we can do is ask or suggest things that they may already have tried. Sometimes we (the people responding to posts) are a little terse, not because we are trying to be smartasses, but because none of us are paid to help the list, so we don't have much time to help those that need it, and sometimes think that a quick response might be enough to help someone past whatever problem they are stuck on as opposed to waiting until later to give a more lengthy reply. I agree that there are some things compiled into Amanda that would be better suited to a config file, but it hasn't bothered me (or evidently anyone else) enough to spend the time to create the required diff's to the source to change it. Now, I wonder why Open Source and Free Software aren't more main stream? Try calling or emailing Microsoft, Sun, Veritas, or any commercial software company and see how much help you get for free, or even with a service contract. There are several regular posters on this list that would easily be considered level 3 support at other companies. I've personally dealt with vendors whose support is very expensive yet is less helpful and responsive than this list. Frank On Wednesday 20 November 2002 03:27 pm, Jon LaBadie wrote: Did you try what the message suggests? That is generally a good first attempt. -- Frank Smith[EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Administrator Voice: 512-374-4673 Hoover's Online Fax: 512-374-4501
Re: amrecover fails *again*
Thanks for the smart response. I'll just stick with my manual method of restoring as I don't have time to change a src file (that I don't currently have) and recompile. Besides, my method works... it's amanda's method that doesn't work, but no one seems to care about that. Read The Fucking Manual punk. My balls are bigger than yours punk so don't bother me. Do what the error message says dog-breath before I squash you with my 64-bit souped-up, compiled the compiler ... yadah yadah yadah Now, I wonder why Open Source and Free Software aren't more main stream? On Wednesday 20 November 2002 03:27 pm, Jon LaBadie wrote: > Did you try what the message suggests? > That is generally a good first attempt.
Re: amrecover fails *again*
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:28:41AM -0500, Richard B. Tilley (Brad) wrote: > No one answered my first post. So here's a brief reminder. > [ snip ] > > However, amrecover fails when trying to restore the large files, the error > message is below: > > timeout waiting for amrestore > increase READ_TIMEOUT in recover-src/extract_list.c if your tape is slow [ snip ] > > ... , but I would like for amrecover to be > able to restore these files... Any suggestions? Did you try what the message suggests? That is generally a good first attempt. -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Re: amrecover fails *again*
As the message says: increase READ_TIMEOUT in recover-src/extract_list.c if your tape is slow That's the only solution, you must recompile amanda. Jean-Louis On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:28:41AM -0500, Richard B. Tilley (Brad) wrote: > No one answered my first post. So here's a brief reminder. > > -- > I use NTBACKUP to copy the entire 'Documents and Settings' directory on the > Windows PC to a file. This file may be as large as 2 Gigabytes (almost, but > not quite). > > Amanda copies the files OK and amverify can read all the files successfully. > However, amrecover fails when trying to restore the large files, the error > message is below: > > timeout waiting for amrestore > increase READ_TIMEOUT in recover-src/extract_list.c if your tape is slow > amrecover: error reading tape: Bad file descriptor > extract_list - child returned non-zero status:1 > Continue? [Y/n]: amrecover> > - > > I can restore the files with native Unix utilities (mt, dd and tar) below is a > step by step method of how I do this, but I would like for amrecover to be > able to restore these files... Any suggestions? > >1. mt -f /dev/nst0 rewind >2. cd to /scratch2/ftp_root >3. mt -f /dev/nst0 fsf 1 >4. dd if=/dev/nst0 bs=32k count=1 >5. repeat 3 & 4 until finding the header that I would like to restore. >6. once finding the correct header I do this: dd if=/dev/nst0 bs=32k | > /bin/tar -xvf - -- Jean-Louis Martineau email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Departement IRO, Universite de Montreal C.P. 6128, Succ. CENTRE-VILLETel: (514) 343-6111 ext. 3529 Montreal, Canada, H3C 3J7Fax: (514) 343-5834
