Re: [BackupPC-users] Help with Samba restore
If the drive on the XP machine is formatted as NTFS then you will have to deal with the file system permissions as well as the share permissions. To avoid confusion, I typically set the share permissions to Everyone Full Control and then use the file system permissions to control access since they are more granular. As soon as I can get to an XP machine, I'll follow up with some more detailed information about setting permissions recursively through the directory levels. Charles On 3/19/07, Rick DeNatale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Craig was kind enough to try to help me off list. It looks like I'm running into permissions problems as I descend the windows directory structure. Does anyone have enough Samba/Windows XP foo to help me. It's looking like windows XP home only lets you allow write permision one directory at a time. See my experiment with smbclient in forwared note. I can't figure out (from the gui at least) a way to permit write sharing recursively. Can anyone help? -- Forwarded message -- From: Rick DeNatale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mar 19, 2007 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Help with Samba restore To: Craig Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] No. I made sure to check the 'let others change' or whatever the wording is when I set up the share, which is to the C: drive of the Windows machine. I've just done a test using smbclient. I think I might have a permissions problem somewhere down the directory hierarchy: $ smbclient //arwen/CDrive smb: \ put test.txt putting file test.txt as \test.txt (0.2 kb/s) (average 0.2 kb/s) smb: \ ls ... test.txtA6 Mon Mar 19 14:22:59 2007 ... smb: \ cd Documents and Settings smb: \Documents and Settings\ put test.txt putting file test.txt as \Documents and Settings\test.txt (2.9 kb/s) (average 0.3 kb/s) smb: \Documents and Settings\ ls . D0 Mon Mar 19 14:23:34 2007 .. D0 Mon Mar 19 14:23:34 2007 All Users D0 Wed Oct 20 09:12:06 2004 Compaq_OwnerD0 Mon Mar 19 10:24:47 2007 deborah D0 Mon Mar 19 11:24:44 2007 Default User DH0 Mon Mar 19 12:15:42 2007 Julia D0 Wed May 25 11:36:15 2005 LocalService DHS0 Wed Oct 20 09:16:32 2004 NetworkServiceDHS0 Wed Oct 20 09:16:31 2004 rickD0 Mon Sep 26 18:17:46 2005 test.txtA6 Mon Mar 19 14:23:34 2007 36807 blocks of size 4194304. 34157 blocks available smb: \Documents and Settings\ cd deborah smb: \Documents and Settings\deborah\ put test.txt NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED opening remote file \Documents and Settings\deborah\test.txt smb: \Documents and Settings\deborah\ cd .. smb: \Documents and Settings\ cd rick smb: \Documents and Settings\rick\ put test.txt NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED opening remote file \Documents and Settings\rick\test.txt smb: \Documents and Settings\rick\ quit This is from an account on the linux machine which has the same name (rick) and password as an administrative account on the XP machine. It won't let me write to either the Documents and Settings directory of that account or my wife's one either. Do I need to set sharing permissions on each sub-directory? Is there a way to do that recursively in XP? On 3/19/07, Craig Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick writes: I'm trying to restore the backup and it isn't working. I think the problem is with my Samba setup. I was hoping someone here might be able to shed some light. Is the share read-only? Craig -- Rick DeNatale -- Rick DeNatale - 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ -- Charles Swarts www.deadeyedata.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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Re: [BackupPC-users] Help with Samba restore
What happens if you start Windows XP Home in safe mode? In home you can only access the detailed security permissions in safe mode I believe. Also, is simple file sharing turned off? Dale From: Charles Swarts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rick DeNatale [EMAIL PROTECTED],backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Help with Samba restore Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:04:27 -0500 If the drive on the XP machine is formatted as NTFS then you will have to deal with the file system permissions as well as the share permissions. To avoid confusion, I typically set the share permissions to Everyone Full Control and then use the file system permissions to control access since they are more granular. As soon as I can get to an XP machine, I'll follow up with some more detailed information about setting permissions recursively through the directory levels. Charles On 3/19/07, Rick DeNatale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Craig was kind enough to try to help me off list. It looks like I'm running into permissions problems as I descend the windows directory structure. Does anyone have enough Samba/Windows XP foo to help me. It's looking like windows XP home only lets you allow write permision one directory at a time. See my experiment with smbclient in forwared note. I can't figure out (from the gui at least) a way to permit write sharing recursively. Can anyone help? -- Forwarded message -- From: Rick DeNatale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mar 19, 2007 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Help with Samba restore To: Craig Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] No. I made sure to check the 'let others change' or whatever the wording is when I set up the share, which is to the C: drive of the Windows machine. I've just done a test using smbclient. I think I might have a permissions problem somewhere down the directory hierarchy: $ smbclient //arwen/CDrive smb: \ put test.txt putting file test.txt as \test.txt (0.2 kb/s) (average 0.2 kb/s) smb: \ ls ... test.txtA6 Mon Mar 19 14:22:59 2007 ... smb: \ cd Documents and Settings smb: \Documents and Settings\ put test.txt putting file test.txt as \Documents and Settings\test.txt (2.9 kb/s) (average 0.3 kb/s) smb: \Documents and Settings\ ls . D0 Mon Mar 19 14:23:34 2007 .. D0 Mon Mar 19 14:23:34 2007 All Users D0 Wed Oct 20 09:12:06 2004 Compaq_OwnerD0 Mon Mar 19 10:24:47 2007 deborah D0 Mon Mar 19 11:24:44 2007 Default User DH0 Mon Mar 19 12:15:42 2007 Julia D0 Wed May 25 11:36:15 2005 LocalService DHS0 Wed Oct 20 09:16:32 2004 NetworkServiceDHS0 Wed Oct 20 09:16:31 2004 rickD0 Mon Sep 26 18:17:46 2005 test.txtA6 Mon Mar 19 14:23:34 2007 36807 blocks of size 4194304. 34157 blocks available smb: \Documents and Settings\ cd deborah smb: \Documents and Settings\deborah\ put test.txt NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED opening remote file \Documents and Settings\deborah\test.txt smb: \Documents and Settings\deborah\ cd .. smb: \Documents and Settings\ cd rick smb: \Documents and Settings\rick\ put test.txt NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED opening remote file \Documents and Settings\rick\test.txt smb: \Documents and Settings\rick\ quit This is from an account on the linux machine which has the same name (rick) and password as an administrative account on the XP machine. It won't let me write to either the Documents and Settings directory of that account or my wife's one either. Do I need to set sharing permissions on each sub-directory? Is there a way to do that recursively in XP? On 3/19/07, Craig Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick writes: I'm trying to restore the backup and it isn't working. I think the problem is with my Samba setup. I was hoping someone here might be able to shed some light. Is the share read-only? Craig -- Rick DeNatale -- Rick DeNatale - 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ -- Charles Swarts www.deadeyedata.com
Re: [BackupPC-users] What do to when backuppc dies?
Frej Eriksson wrote: I sent an e-mail to the list last week and got good answers so now i have tested BackupPC for a short time, the result has been satisfying. But as always some new questions has poped up. Lets presume that the server that runs BackupPC and stores all backed up data crashes. The system disk is unusable but the data disks seem to be fine. At the same time I need to restore several backups from the data disk, what is the fastest and easiest way to get my backed up data back? Doing a manual restore is no problem if its possible to access the backed up data without BackupPC. At least a few on this list have attested to leaving the data disks in an external case so it can be switched to another machine with the same version of BackupPC installed, presumably with a cron job rsync'ing the program directory every night. Others have described using a RAID with mirroring, so you always have a backup drive available in the event of failures. If those drives are in a removable chassis, you could occasionally pull the drive and insert a new one, forcing a re-sync and giving you a backup that you can carry off to a safe storage location, in the event of a total meltdown or break-in. Still others lay off the data to tape in a non-backup-pc form from the most recent full backup. I think it really depends on your level of comfort with technology, your budget, and your anticipated level of direct involvement. Is there any compability problems with backups from different versions of BackupPC? I believe, though I haven't tried it, you can restore files from an older version. You will have more problems if you decide to switch transport layer protocols, though, because the way certain kinds of links are stored in the pools differs. I don't know the details, but if you search the archives, you will find more answers. 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
[BackupPC-users] upgrade to 3.0
Hi, are there any issues upgrading from 2.1.2.pl1? is 3.0 yet apt-getable? regards Hinnack - 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=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] out of disk space - big oops
probably not useful to the OP at this point, but for the archives' sake i'm replying to an old thread here - Another option would be to copy your filesystem to a new raw device that is bigger (use dd to do the copy). This filesystem might in fact be an LVM device, to make this process easier next time ;) Then, use your filesystem's tools to expand the filesystem size. Most but likely not all filesystems nowadays have this capability. You'd need to do that in the LVM case too. On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 07:12:48AM +1000, Troy Piggins wrote: * Les Mikesell is quoted my replies are inline below : Troy Piggins wrote: By default my backuppc is backing up to /var/lib/backuppc/pc/localhost for example. I back up only 2 machines - localhost (Ubuntu linux) via tar and a WindowsXP via smb. All was going well until I added some dirs from the Windows machine, the backup jumped to about 40Gb and has filled the disk. I only have 1.5Mb free space on drive /var is mounted on. Unless you've done this before, you have no idea how hard it is to do things with no spare space. As I type this I am 'cp -a /var/lib/backuppc/pc/windows /mnt/hda4' to get windows off to another partition. Then I'll 'sudo rm -rf /var/lib/backuppc/pc/windows' to free the space. My questions: - is there a better way to migrate in future? - is there a way to tell backuppc to store backups somewhere else? or should I just mount another partition to /var/lib/backuppc/pc or similar? Any recommendations? The pool/cpool directory and the pc directory must be on the same filesystem in order for the hardlinks to work. The only way you can add Aah, I'd been reading about the hardlinks and wasn't sure to what extent they were relevant. As I said, I moved the .../pc dir, but didn't move the .../pool or .../cpool dirs. extra drives is if you are using LVM or a similar system that allows mapping multiple drives underneath a single filesystem that can grow, and then any single drive failure will lose data. I'd recommend copying what you have in /var/lib/backuppc to a much larger drive or raid (which may take a long time to reconstruct the hardlinks), then mount it or symlink the mount point into /var/lib/backuppc. Or keep what you have for emergencies and start over with a new setup on a larger drive. Depending on how much you need those old backups and how long it will take to get new runs, they may not be worth the time it takes to copy them. I think I'll do the latter - add new drive and start again. Thanks. -- Troy Piggins ,-O (o-O All your sigs are belong to us. http://piggo.com/~troy O ) //\ O RLU#415538 `-O V_/_ OOO hackerkey://v3sw5HPUhw5ln4pr6OSck1ma9u6LwXm5l6Di2e6t5MGSRb8OTen4g7OPa3Xs7MIr8p7 - 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ danno -- Dan Pritts, System Administrator Internet2 office: +1-734-352-4953 | mobile: +1-734-834-7224 - 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
[BackupPC-users] Web admin will not execute after installing 3.0
After installing 3.0 in slackware I can list the BackupPC_Admin file contents in my web browser but it will not execute. The files is marked as executable and the default group for the file was user. I have tried various user and group permissions and they are currently backuppc and group is currently nobody. I have looked at Apache's user and it is root for the parent and nobody for the child processes. Can anyone help me get the web admin running? - 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=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] upgrade to 3.0
yes it is already in apt repository but I think it is still in testing/unstable to install it you have to uncoment those lines on sources.list I talked about it in another thread Henrik Genssen wrote: Hi, are there any issues upgrading from 2.1.2.pl1? is 3.0 yet apt-getable? regards Hinnack - 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ - 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
[BackupPC-users] WARNING regarding using solaris with UFS as your backuppc server
Hi all - I've been running solaris 10 as my backuppc server for quite a while now. It mostly has worked fine. However, recently, I have frequently been bitten by solaris UFS filesystem bugs; the filesystem becomes corrupted for no good reason. I'd blame my hardware if i hadn't had similar experiences several years ago (on solaris) with an application that was written to use flat files as a database. the filesystem just didn't like lots and lots of small files and the system panicked every few weeks, and fsck took FOREVER. I'm guessing it doesn't like lots of hard links, either, and my fscks have taken over two days (admittedly, i am using slow disks). I'm converting my system to run on linux as i write this. Anyway, just a word of warning. I wouldn't be surprised if nobody else had ever run this on Solaris, and I'd like nobody else to run into the problems I have. ps - converting to use ZFS would likely fix this set of problems, but i'm nervous that it would introduce more, ZFS is just not mature yet. danno -- Dan Pritts, System Administrator Internet2 office: +1-734-352-4953 | mobile: +1-734-834-7224 - 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=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] Timing out full backups
Hi, Hi, I have the following host summary: server1username1 20.63.360.772 10.4 10.4 idledone server2 username1 20.63.23 0.743 10.4 10.4idledone server3username2 20.68.52 1.894 18.6 18.6 idledone server4username2 20.63.011.41 5 10.4 10.4idledone server5username2 20.63.38 1.244 18.6 18.6 idledone server6username2 20.62.861.44 5 10.4 10.4idledone This is on a test BackupPC server still using Beta 3.0 (I'll soon build a production BackupPC server to replace this box). I'm wondering why the full backups numbered 2 are not going back down to 1 to free up some space on the server? In the glbal Schedule, I have the following: FullPeriod: 6.97 FullKeepCnt: 1 FullKeepCntMin: 1 FullAgeMax: 7 and it's my understanding that backuppc should cycle those full backups above to trash because of the above globals yes? Did anyone have any ideas on this? Thanks. 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=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] WARNING regarding using solaris with UFS as your backuppc server
I'd blame my hardware if i hadn't had similar experiences several years ago (on solaris) with an application that was written to use flat files as a database. the filesystem just didn't like lots and lots of small files and the system panicked every few weeks, and fsck took FOREVER. I'm guessing it doesn't like lots of hard links, either, and my fscks have taken over two days (admittedly, i am using slow disks). I'm converting my system to run on linux as i write this. Anyway, just a word of warning. I wouldn't be surprised if nobody else had ever run this on Solaris, and I'd like nobody else to run into the problems I have. I'd think it's a problem that you could possibly run into on other OS and filesystem due to either contstraints of the inode table or kernel limits, and certain performance features, such as sparse files and inlining small files in the inodes themselves. On SGI IRIX, I vaguely remember tuning parameters in XFS or older EFS due to similar problems where you have lots of small files and directories, but that was a few years ago. IRIX also had some xfs debug tools that were somewhat useful. I don't know if there is anything comparable for UFS. Newer fs, including current version of XFS, have theorhetical limits that are much higher, but I suspect may have unanticipated problems at lower limits, depending how well they really scale and the hardware that they are implemented on. Although I mentioned XFS, this is not an endorsement or anything, for / or /boot I am using ext3 (a conservative choice I think and also works well with Xen) then primarily ReiserFS on LVM and RAID1 where I can. xfsdump and related tools was the killer app for me when I was doing AMANDA tape backups, but restoring from BackupPC is so much easier. What's somewhat unique to BackupPC is the large number of hard links, especially as you add more computers into the system. Jonathan - 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
[BackupPC-users] Backuppc Archiving
Hi, I'm using backuppc version 2.1.2-6 (debian stable package). I've got backuppc nicely backing up a number of machines, on a regular basis, which is all working quite well. I would now like to create an archive of the backup so that it can be written to DVD and moved offsite for archival/etc purposes (you know the usual stuff)... Anyway, the archive seems to be a lot bigger than the actual backup, and I'm trying to work out if I am doing something wrong For example, on the host summary page I have host3 with a full size/GB listed as 113.82 and when I go to archive it shows up with host2 as 233.18 (I assume GB). This seems to be a pretty big difference, and makes a huge difference to the number of DVD's required to store this archive!! Does the archive simple store the most recent backup, or does it somehow archive every version of backup which is available? Thanks, Adam -- Adam Goryachev Website Managers Ph: +61 2 8304 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +61 2 8304 0001www.websitemanagers.com.au - 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=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] Timing out full backups
Michael Mansour wrote: Hi, Hi, I have the following host summary: server1 username1 20.63.360.772 10.4 10.4 idledone server2 username1 20.63.23 0.743 10.4 10.4idledone server3username2 20.68.52 1.894 18.6 18.6 idledone server4username2 20.63.01 1.415 10.4 10.4idledone server5username2 20.63.38 1.244 18.6 18.6 idledone server6username2 20.62.86 1.445 10.4 10.4idledone This is on a test BackupPC server still using Beta 3.0 (I'll soon build a production BackupPC server to replace this box). I'm wondering why the full backups numbered 2 are not going back down to 1 to free up some space on the server? In the glbal Schedule, I have the following: FullPeriod: 6.97 FullKeepCnt: 1 FullKeepCntMin: 1 FullAgeMax: 7 and it's my understanding that backuppc should cycle those full backups above to trash because of the above globals yes? Did anyone have any ideas on this? Full backups that incrementals are based from are not deleted until after the corresponding incremental runs have been removed, and your last full will not be removed until the next one is complete. -- 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.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
