[BackupPC-users] receiving mails though backup are disabled; obscure time-out error with smb
sorry, last time I used a wrong sender-address...
> Hello,
>
> we use Backuppc as our primary backup and everything works fine except two
> points.
>
> First one is that some of our clients aren't online any more but we would
> keep
> the backups. According to the help I changed the per-client-config of
> $Conf{FullPeriod} to -2. Today I get a mail that this machine isn't full
> backuped since more than 7 days. I believed the changed configuration would
> suppress this messages, has anyone a hint?
>
> The second one is real strange. The smb-backup of our Win2000-computers is
> stable, but yesterday I added the first XP machine. Now I get everytime the
> error "Call timed out: server did not respond after 2 milliseconds
> opening
> remote file \Bin\AdvOCR\F (\Bin\AdvOCR\)". On this machine isn't at all a
> file
> or directory called \Bin\AdvOCR\F but the browsing of the backup-archive
> shows
> that backuppc creates many empty directories which didn't exists on the
> remote
> machine.
> My first thought was an outdated smb-client but updating didn't fixed the
> problem. If I mount the smb-share on the console of the backup-server
> everything
> is allright and I can't see the directories backuppc tries to save.
> The directories are all one-letter names (e.g. a, c, I, N, O, ...) - what
> happened?
>
> Thank you very much for any help,
> Renke Brausse
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> Renke Brausse
>
> --
> iOMEDICO AG
> Hanferstraße 28
> 79108 Freiburg
>
> Tel.:+49 (0)761/15242-21
> Fax.:+49 (0)761/15242-10
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Renke Brausse -- iOMEDICO AG Hanferstraße 28
79108 Freiburg Tel.:+49 (0)761/15242-21 Fax.:+49 (0)761/15242-10
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Rsync and Public Keys
Tino Schwarze wrote: I found an article on an article somewhere online that I should add the BackupPC user to the sudoers file, see the /etc/sudoers file below for the syntax I used: IIRC, this is only for local backup via rsync. I think that article was talking about using another user than root on the client machine. It is more secure to add a user on the client machine and allow that user to use rsync via the sudoers file (so it can run rsync as root) than using root on the client machine. Here's a post to this list that explains setting this up: http:// www.mail-archive.com/backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03002.html Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
[BackupPC-users] Using backuppc to back up a freebsd server
Hi,
I've found backing up any linux server's data works using tar and ssh
but when trying to back up a freebsd server it gives the following error:
2006-12-19 11:30:03 full backup started for directory /etc
2006-12-19 11:30:04 Got fatal error during xfer (No files dumped for share /etc)
2006-12-19 11:30:09 Backup aborted (No files dumped for share /etc)
2006-12-19 11:30:09 Saved partial dump 0
The command its executing:
$Conf{TarClientCmd} = '/usr/bin/sudo $sshPath -q -x -n -l root $host'
. ' env LC_ALL=C $tarPath -c -v -f - -C $shareName+'
. ' --totals';
ssh to the machine works with keys as root from the backuppc server and
sudo is working properly.
I've tried removing the "env LC_ALL=C" and also changing it to
"LC_ALL=C" and "LANG=C" and "env LANG=C" and no luck.
I'm not sure how helpful this would be but running a locale on the
relevant machine to be backed up gives:
LANG=
LC_CTYPE="C"
LC_COLLATE="C"
LC_TIME="C"
LC_NUMERIC="C"
LC_MONETARY="C"
LC_MESSAGES="C"
LC_ALL=
I've also changed the apache to have a shell account for testing and
managed to run the above tarclientcmd with all relevant variables
successfully. Also after the command completes a echo $? reports error
code "0".
Thnx in advance,
--
Garith Dugmore
Systems Administrator
South African Astronomical Observatory
Phone: 021 460 9343
Website:http://www.saao.ac.za
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Using backuppc to back up a freebsd server
Unluckily, tar is not tar. Backuppc is written for GNU tar and FreeBSD is most likely using BSD tar. An additional problem is that using GNU tar 1.16 does not work for changing (used) filesystems due to a changed return code. Try tar --version and if it does not say: tar (GNU tar) 1.14 (or 1.15 or 1.15.1) Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program comes with NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. You may redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License; see the file named COPYING for details. Written by John Gilmore and Jay Fenlason. have a look at the FreeBSD ports if there is a GNU tar package. If not, download tar 1.15.1 from GNU and build it. HTH, Torsten Am Dienstag, 19. Dezember 2006 10:53 schrieb Garith Dugmore: > Hi, > > I've found backing up any linux server's data works using tar and ssh > but when trying to back up a freebsd server it gives the following error: > > 2006-12-19 11:30:03 full backup started for directory /etc > 2006-12-19 11:30:04 Got fatal error during xfer (No files dumped for share > /etc) 2006-12-19 11:30:09 Backup aborted (No files dumped for share /etc) > 2006-12-19 11:30:09 Saved partial dump 0 > - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Using backuppc to back up a freebsd server
Hmmm... quite right. bsdtar 1.02.023, libarchive 1.02.026 Funny thing is it actually does do the copy but just spits out the error. I can see all the backups done (and retrieve them) but I unfortunately don't get the warm and fuzzy feeling of seeing the backup completed successfully. The freebsd box in question has a lean and mean setup and cannot be altered for reasons I can't mention here. Would there be any way to hack the tarclientcmd to get this to work at all? Torsten Sadowski wrote: Unluckily, tar is not tar. Backuppc is written for GNU tar and FreeBSD is most likely using BSD tar. An additional problem is that using GNU tar 1.16 does not work for changing (used) filesystems due to a changed return code. Try tar --version and if it does not say: tar (GNU tar) 1.14 (or 1.15 or 1.15.1) Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program comes with NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. You may redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License; see the file named COPYING for details. Written by John Gilmore and Jay Fenlason. have a look at the FreeBSD ports if there is a GNU tar package. If not, download tar 1.15.1 from GNU and build it. HTH, Torsten Am Dienstag, 19. Dezember 2006 10:53 schrieb Garith Dugmore: Hi, I've found backing up any linux server's data works using tar and ssh but when trying to back up a freebsd server it gives the following error: 2006-12-19 11:30:03 full backup started for directory /etc 2006-12-19 11:30:04 Got fatal error during xfer (No files dumped for share /etc) 2006-12-19 11:30:09 Backup aborted (No files dumped for share /etc) 2006-12-19 11:30:09 Saved partial dump 0 - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ -- Garith Dugmore Systems Administrator South African Astronomical Observatory Phone: 021 460 9343 Website: http://www.saao.ac.za - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Suggested feature - auto-refresh of Host Summary page
On 12/19 02:06 , Michael Mansour wrote: > BackupPC: Host Summary > This status was generated at 19/12 15:04. > > Could we have a setting in there to refresh that browser page every x > seconds? I would suggest that you should just do it by hand whenever you care to look; rather than wasting CPU time rendering pages that no one will look at. Things aren't quite as bad as they were in the old days when auto-refreshing pages in one browser tab would steal focus away from whatever you were working on (which led to text being entered in the wrong place inadvertently); but I still think that auto-refreshing pages should only be used on rare occasions like non-interactive wall displays, or alert pages (like Nagios/Netsaint), where the risk is acceptable. at any rate, if it can be set to auto-refresh; at least have an option to turn that off. -- Carl Soderstrom Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Rsync and Public Keys
On 12/19 10:11 , Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote: > Tino Schwarze wrote: > > >> I found an article on an article somewhere online that I should > >> add the > >> BackupPC user to the sudoers file, see the /etc/sudoers file below > >> for the > >> syntax I used: > > > > IIRC, this is only for local backup via rsync. > > I think that article was talking about using another user than root > on the client machine. It is more secure to add a user on the client > machine and allow that user to use rsync via the sudoers file (so it > can run rsync as root) than using root on the client machine. > > Here's a post to this list that explains setting this up: http:// > www.mail-archive.com/backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg03002.html Thanks for posting that, Nils. :) I don't suppose that can be added to the docs on the backuppc website? I'll edit the article a bit if need be. -- Carl Soderstrom Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Suggested feature - auto-refresh of Host Summary page
Hi Carl, > > BackupPC: Host Summary > > This status was generated at 19/12 15:04. > > > > Could we have a setting in there to refresh that browser page every x > > seconds? > > I would suggest that you should just do it by hand whenever you care > to look; rather than wasting CPU time rendering pages that no one > will look at. Things aren't quite as bad as they were in the old > days when auto-refreshing pages in one browser tab would steal focus > away from whatever you were working on (which led to text being > entered in the wrong place inadvertently); but I still think that > auto-refreshing pages should only be used on rare occasions like non- > interactive wall displays, or alert pages > (like Nagios/Netsaint), where the risk is acceptable. > > at any rate, if it can be set to auto-refresh; at least have an > option to turn that off. Yeah, I would imagine that anyone that programs this into the software will make it selectable. I use mailscanning software also and it's important to have at least 30 sec refresh rates (again selectable in the software) to be able to monitor queues, viruses, scanned messages, filters on scanned messages, etc. Auto-freshing has it's place so I still think it would be a handy thing to have support for. Michael. > -- > Carl Soderstrom > Systems Administrator > Real-Time Enterprises > www.real-time.com > > - > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - > and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php? page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > ___ > BackupPC-users mailing list > BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users > http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ --- End of Original Message --- - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Suggested feature - auto-refresh of Host Summary page
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 08:08:46AM -0600, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > > BackupPC: Host Summary > > This status was generated at 19/12 15:04. > > > > Could we have a setting in there to refresh that browser page every x > > seconds? > > I would suggest that you should just do it by hand whenever you care to > look; rather than wasting CPU time rendering pages that no one will look at. > Things aren't quite as bad as they were in the old days when auto-refreshing > pages in one browser tab would steal focus away from whatever you were > working on (which led to text being entered in the wrong place > inadvertently); but I still think that auto-refreshing pages should only be > used on rare occasions like non-interactive wall displays, or alert pages > (like Nagios/Netsaint), where the risk is acceptable. > > at any rate, if it can be set to auto-refresh; at least have an option to > turn that off. For the time being, you could use Firefox' reload page feature. I'm not sure, whether it's standard or part of some extension. At least, I've got a "Reload every" submenu in my right-click context menu. (FF2) Bye, Tino. -- www.quantenfeuerwerk.de www.spiritualdesign-chemnitz.de www.lebensraum11.de - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
[BackupPC-users] difference between rsync and smb XFerMethod
Sorry for the newbie questions here, but: if I use rsync instead of smb, will new files be backed up during incremental backup. Also... if a laptop is unavailable for backup for extended period of time, does backuppc "know" to do a full backup as soon as it is next available? -- Regards, dbp - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] difference between rsync and smb XFerMethod
On 12/19 08:56 , dbp lists wrote: > if I use rsync instead of smb, will new files be backed up during > incremental backup. yes. AFAIK, more reliably so. I believe rsync is better at catching new files than tar. (which is what's run over SMB, again AFAIK). > Also... if a laptop is unavailable for backup for extended period of > time, does backuppc "know" to do a full backup as soon as it is next > available? yes. backuppc pings hosts before trying to back them up. if a host has not responded to pings for a while, then as soon as it starts again, it will be backed up (provided the scheduled time to do the backup has passed). -- Carl Soderstrom Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] difference between rsync and smb XFerMethod
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 08:56:57AM -0800, dbp lists wrote: > if I use rsync instead of smb, will new files be backed up during > incremental backup. Yes, of course. rsync is just the transfer method. I'm not sure about your second question, though. In fact, a full or incremental backup doesn't make much of a difference with BackupPC since the files are shared/reused anyway. Bye, Tino. -- www.quantenfeuerwerk.de www.spiritualdesign-chemnitz.de www.lebensraum11.de - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
[BackupPC-users] some questions...
Hi. Using Backuppc (debian) successfully in my company for about 5 months, backing up 6 winXX shares using samba. The machine is a simple Pentium 4 with a 40GB HD that is getting full. Already ordered a 250GB ata100 hd. but I'm not sure what to do... should I use the 250Gb for the data only, or just replace the hd's using ghost?! Other thing that I didnt know how to do is to make a backup to record to DVD. Most of the hosts are backed up 2 times a day, and it has xfermethod=smb, I can't put in here archive, right? how can I archive a backup to dvd?! cause I will need to make permanent backups to archive to DVD in the end of the year... btw, is it possible to backup thought ftp?, or mount an ftp ?!, it is a local machine, IBM AIX that does not have NFS installed and I don't want to mess in there... and the email summary... I am trying to configure exim4 to sendmail by a smarthost but it is getting tricky... sometimes sends email other don't.. but these emails I send are with manual command mail or sendmail ... I didn't get how I can configure backuppc to email-me if a backup fails... I hope you understand my bad english :) Thanks a LOT! - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
[BackupPC-users] rsyncd incremental works, full fails
Hello again everyone! I solved the earlier problems I had with rsyncd by using the package from the backuppc page for cygwin rather than forcing my own install. Rsyncd now seems to work, but I have a strange error. I have 2 full backups from when the backuppc operated on smb, and have now switched to rsyncd. If I do an incremental update with rsyncd, it passes with no problem, but if I try a full backup, it says "no files dumped" for one of the shares. Here is from the log for this host: 2006-12-19 04:00:03 full backup started for directory UPC; updating partial 17 2006-12-19 04:00:09 full backup started for directory apps; updating partial 17 2006-12-19 05:25:42 Got fatal error during xfer (No files dumped for share UPC) 2006-12-19 05:25:47 Backup aborted (No files dumped for share UPC) 2006-12-19 05:25:47 Saved partial dump 17 2006-12-19 07:42:34 incr backup started back to 2006-11-23 00:06:28 for directory UPC 2006-12-19 07:42:39 incr backup started back to 2006-11-23 00:06:28 for directory apps 2006-12-19 09:07:10 incr backup 17 complete, 22320 files, 21407943586 bytes, 1 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 1 other) What is going on that it can get files from the share when it is incremental, but won't just grab the whole thing? Thanks, Jim - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] some questions...
On 12/19 07:17 , Filipe wrote: > Using Backuppc (debian) successfully in my company for about 5 months, > backing up 6 winXX shares using samba. > The machine is a simple Pentium 4 with a 40GB HD that is getting full. > Already ordered a 250GB ata100 hd. but I'm not sure what to do... > should I use the 250Gb for the data only, or just replace the hd's using > ghost?! move the contents of /var/lib/backuppc (or whereever your data pool is) to the new drive, and then mount the new drive on /var/lib/backuppc. It's a very good idea to have your data on a separate drive from the OS. At the very least, use a separate partition on disk. also, I would suggest using LVM on the data partition/disk. this will allow you to add space much more easily in the future; or move your data to another disk. -- Carl Soderstrom Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
[BackupPC-users] What is the status of VSS shadow copy feature?
Hi, How close is BackupPC is to implementing a VSS shadow copy? -- Best regards, Sherman Boyd - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Backup successful - now to exclude
> I'm wondering now how to exclude things like "/proc" globally and per-PC. > You cannot exclude something globally, then exclude more per-PC. The per-PC settings simply override whatever was set globally, since it's just setting a perl variable. I suppose you could actually write perl code that pushes more directories onto the array, but it would get cryptic very fast. Look into setting something globally if you have several machines that share a similar set of excludes, and override where different configurations are needed. The documentation explains how to write per-PC configs. If you're using 3.0.0beta, you can actually edit the PC config straight from the CGI interface. > Also wondering how through the CGI interface I can have "normal" users who > can view/start/restore their backups while different from the "admin" users > (my terminology may be wrong here). > You have to create multiple 'users' in your auth file for the CGI to allow people to log in. Once you have that, you assign these users to their respective machines in the BackupPC hosts file. This way, when one of those users accesses the CGI pages, it requests them to log in... which they do, and are presented with only the machines they are associated with in hosts. > Can't seem to find a config variable other than CgiAdminUsers available. > This variable only tells what users should have access to everything. You set the per-PC owners in the hosts file. Hope this helps, JH - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Suggested feature - auto-refresh of Host Summary page
Hi Tino, > > > BackupPC: Host Summary > > > This status was generated at 19/12 15:04. > > > > > > Could we have a setting in there to refresh that browser page every x > > > seconds? > > > > I would suggest that you should just do it by hand whenever you care to > > look; rather than wasting CPU time rendering pages that no one will look at. > > Things aren't quite as bad as they were in the old days when auto- refreshing > > pages in one browser tab would steal focus away from whatever you were > > working on (which led to text being entered in the wrong place > > inadvertently); but I still think that auto-refreshing pages should only be > > used on rare occasions like non-interactive wall displays, or alert pages > > (like Nagios/Netsaint), where the risk is acceptable. > > > > at any rate, if it can be set to auto-refresh; at least have an option to > > turn that off. > > For the time being, you could use Firefox' reload page feature. I'm not > sure, whether it's standard or part of some extension. At least, I've > got a "Reload every" submenu in my right-click context menu. (FF2) Yes I know this, as my original post mentioned. But I think it's still a worthwhile feature to have from the server end in case the browser doesn't support auto-refreshes. Eg. some sites I work at they lockdown citrix environments so much so that they force you to use Internet Exploder with no option to "install" firefox or opera for their refresh page features. So basically, there's little choice but to use a crappy browser on a sluggish citrix environment. Support from the server end is still worthwhile in my opinion. Regards, Michael. - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] difference between rsync and smb XFerMethod
> Yes, of course. rsync is just the transfer method. > The reason I asked was because with smb method (which is the only thing I've tried so far), new files are only backed up during full backup, not incremental backup. >From http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/faq/BackupPC.html#backup_basics: "For SMB and tar, BackupPC backups all files that have changed since one hour prior to the start of the last successful full backup. Rsync is more clever: any files whose attributes have changed (ie: uid, gid, mtime, modes, size) since the last full are backed up. Deleted, new files and renamed files are detected by Rsync incrementals. In constrast, SMB and tar incrementals are not able to detect deleted files, renamed files or new files whose modification time is prior to the last full dump. " According to this, then, rsync will backup new files even during incremental backups - unlike for smb. ... which then makes me wonder - how is the full backup different from an incremental backup when using rsync method. Thanks to all for all replies. - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] difference between rsync and smb XFerMethod
dbp lists wrote: > The reason I asked was because with smb method (which is the only > thing I've tried so far), new files are only backed up during full > backup, not incremental backup. That should not be the case if 'new' files are defined as having timestamps later than the last run. There are many ways of copying files that maintain an older timestamp - perhaps those are what are being missed. > According to this, then, rsync will backup new files even during > incremental backups - unlike for smb. ... which then makes me wonder - > how is the full backup different from an incremental backup when using > rsync method. Thanks to all for all replies. An incremental rsync quickly skips files where the timestamp and length match your existing copy. In the 2.x versions incrementals aways work against the last full backup and repeated incrementals transfer increasingly more data. A full does a block-checksum comparison of all existing files and also establishes a new base for subsequent runs. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
