Smbclient Question
Hello All, I have successfully been using amanda now for a week on all my Linux servers, and it works beautifully. Now I would like to try it on a few NT4 and W2K machines. I have created a NT4 domain user that can mount all the windows shares that I would like to backup. I have tested that this user can indeed mount the shares by manually running "smbclient //server/share -U user_name" from the amanda server and it works. I have also created a amandapass in /etc on the amanda server with entries for the Windows machines. My question is this: what do I do now? How can I make amanda automate the mounts and perform the backups? If this info is on the Net somewhere, please forgive my question and simply point me to it. Thank you, Brad
smbclient question
I have about 60 MS clients, and currently, they are all mounted by smbclient through the AMANDA backup server. I have a few other Linux machines that are backed up too, and I was wondering if it would be better to spread these SAMBA mounts out across 2 or 3 other Linux machines. So, instead of mounting 60 MS clients on the Amanda server, spread the 60 out across 3 Linux machines. Or does it matter? Any advice is appreciated. -- Brad
smbclient question
Good Morning, I have setup amanda to archive my win 2k clients, and all appeared to be well in testing. I have a client that has a 63G file, that smbclient is only showing as 170M. This is what amanda archived and if I view the file with smbclient the size of the file is reported as 170M. I am running 2.4.2p2 on linux. Any ideas why smbclient is reporting the size incorrectly? Thank you, Drew
Re: Smbclient Question
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Richard B. Tilley (Brad) wrote: > My question is this: what do I do now? How can I make amanda automate the > mounts and perform the backups? If this info is on the Net somewhere, > please forgive my question and simply point me to it. See docs/SAMBA in your amanda distribution directory. -Mitch
Re: Smbclient Question
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 at 8:52am, Richard B. Tilley (Brad) wrote > My question is this: what do I do now? How can I make amanda automate the > mounts and perform the backups? If this info is on the Net somewhere, > please forgive my question and simply point me to it. > from docs/SAMBA: === Example === The Amanda client software and patched Samba is installed on host 'pcserver'. A share to be backed up called 'backupc' is on PC 'thepc'. The share will be accessed via PC user 'bozo' and password 'f00bar' and does not require a workgroup. The entry in the disklist file is: pcserver//thepc/backupc nocomp-user-gnutar ^ samba installed unix host ^ pc host and share name ^ dumptype must include the tar option In /etc/amandapass on the machine 'pcserver': //thepc/backupc bozo%f00bar If smbclient requires a workgroup specification (-W), you may add it as a third argument in /etc/amandapass line: //thepc/backupc bozo%f00bar NTGROUP This will cause smbclient to be invoked with -W NTGROUP. -- Joshua Baker-LePain Department of Biomedical Engineering Duke University
Re: Smbclient Question
I want to thnak everyone for the samba tips. Everything works fine now. I did have some problems with the white spaces under the Windows naming convention; you know, like //MACHINE/Documents and Settings/user name/My Documents Anyway, I made a share named "amanda" diretly under the W2K root, and it worked fine when I ran amcheck. How do you guys address the white space problem? I assume most users want "My Documents" saved. Do you make a short cut without any white spaces? Thanks, Brad
Re: smbclient question
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, R. Bradley Tilley wrote: >I have about 60 MS clients, and currently, they are all mounted by smbclient >through the AMANDA backup server. I have a few other Linux machines that are >backed up too, and I was wondering if it would be better to spread these >SAMBA mounts out across 2 or 3 other Linux machines. > >So, instead of mounting 60 MS clients on the Amanda server, spread the 60 out >across 3 Linux machines. Or does it matter? Any advice is appreciated. Seems rather Rube Goldberg to me. Why add an extra level of complexity for yourself when trying to debug problems? Brandon D. Valentine -- "Iam mens praetrepidans avet vagari." - G. Valerius Catullus, Carmina, XLVI
Re: smbclient question
On Monday 14 January 2002 04:13 pm, you wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, R. Bradley Tilley wrote: > >I have about 60 MS clients, and currently, they are all mounted by > > smbclient through the AMANDA backup server. I have a few other Linux > > machines that are backed up too, and I was wondering if it would be > > better to spread these SAMBA mounts out across 2 or 3 other Linux > > machines. > > > >So, instead of mounting 60 MS clients on the Amanda server, spread the 60 > > out across 3 Linux machines. Or does it matter? Any advice is > > appreciated. What I've seen is the change in the response time. But if your response time is good enough, leave it alone. F.ex. if you ran some big db which hauled all the data back and forth on all pc's you'd end up with heave network load. On the other hand if load is light you would not see any difference. Also, I would build a bigger server before I spread it over several machines. Use minimum 100MB network with switches rather than hubs. I have fourty machines running a stupid DOS db app. It has 115 files open per user! (I'm having it redone) We have no problem with access. My smaller server is a dual 700MHz PIII Coppermine with a mere 256MB RAM. It's feeding this old DOS db for all just fine. (It used to be fed OK by a single 600MHz with 256MB running NT.) Besides, how would you solve three servers feeding the same data? Clusters would probably be the only practical way to go. Steve -- Steve Szmidt V.P. Information Video Group Distributors, Inc.
Re: smbclient question
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:38:43AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have setup amanda to archive my win 2k clients, and all appeared to be > well in testing. I have a client that has a 63G file, that smbclient is > only showing as 170M. This is what amanda archived and if I view the file > with smbclient the size of the file is reported as 170M. I think this is a restriction of smbfs which has a maximum file size of 2GB. You'll probably find that 170M = actual file size MOD 2GB. Regards, Niall O Broin
Re: smbclient question
The interesting thing is that I restored it an it was only 170M locally on my archive host. Are you saying when I move it over it will expand? I really do not see how that is possible, but I am no smb expert.. Thank you, Drew On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Niall O Broin wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:38:43AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I have setup amanda to archive my win 2k clients, and all appeared to be > > well in testing. I have a client that has a 63G file, that smbclient is > > only showing as 170M. This is what amanda archived and if I view the file > > with smbclient the size of the file is reported as 170M. > > I think this is a restriction of smbfs which has a maximum file size of 2GB. > You'll probably find that 170M = actual file size MOD 2GB. > > > > > Regards, > > > Niall O Broin >
Re: smbclient question
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:28:35AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The interesting thing is that I restored it an it was only 170M locally on > my archive host. Are you saying when I move it over it will expand? I Of course not - what did I say that makes you think that ? > really do not see how that is possible, but I am no smb expert.. That's not possible, even for smb experts. A snake oil salesman might be able to help you. Regards, Niall O Broin
