Re: [BackupPC-users] 3.1.0beta0 - CGI Column sorting
Michael writes: The numeric columns appear to sort alphabetically. For example: Full Size (GB) 0.81 1.82 14.77 2.55 3.93 Yes, I noticed that too. I'll fix it in the next version. Craig - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] problem with ${FullKeepCnt} on a per-machine basis
I still have a problem with hosts with a particular ${FullKeepCnt}.
For example, this host should have no more than 6 full backups because
${FullKeepCnt} = [4, 2].
I had deleted the oldest full backups so that I only have 6. But here is
what I get now (7 full backups):
329 full7/12 10:01
339 full7/27 03:26
349 full8/10 21:00
354 full8/17 21:00
361 full8/27 10:58
362 incremental 8/28 11:16
363 incremental 8/29 11:00
364 incremental 8/30 11:00
365 incremental 8/31 21:00
366 incremental 9/1 21:00
367 full9/3 11:39
368 incremental 9/4 11:00
369 incremental 9/5 11:26
370 incremental 9/6 11:41
371 full9/10 16:00
And here is the log file:
8--
2007-09-01 21:00:27 incr backup started back to 2007-08-31 21:00:15
(backup #365) for directory mesdoc
2007-09-01 21:23:04 incr backup started back to 2007-08-31 21:00:15
(backup #365) for directory documents_and_settings
2007-09-01 21:27:53 incr backup 366 complete, 25 files, 855693391 bytes,
23 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 23 other)
2007-09-03 11:39:52 full backup started for directory mesdoc (baseline
backup #366)
2007-09-03 13:52:03 full backup started for directory
documents_and_settings (baseline backup #366)
2007-09-03 14:10:29 full backup 367 complete, 144999 files, 11798042
bytes, 26 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 26 other)
2007-09-03 14:10:29 removing full backup 344
2007-09-04 11:00:21 incr backup started back to 2007-09-03 11:39:52
(backup #367) for directory mesdoc
2007-09-04 11:31:16 incr backup started back to 2007-09-03 11:39:52
(backup #367) for directory documents_and_settings
2007-09-04 11:47:40 incr backup 368 complete, 382 files, 4741632447
bytes, 24 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 24 other)
2007-09-05 11:26:58 incr backup started back to 2007-09-04 11:00:21
(backup #368) for directory mesdoc
2007-09-05 11:58:15 incr backup started back to 2007-09-04 11:00:21
(backup #368) for directory documents_and_settings
2007-09-05 12:15:19 incr backup 369 complete, 235 files, 4804126234
bytes, 22 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 22 other)
2007-09-06 11:41:29 incr backup started back to 2007-09-05 11:26:58
(backup #369) for directory mesdoc
2007-09-06 12:13:25 incr backup started back to 2007-09-05 11:26:58
(backup #369) for directory documents_and_settings
2007-09-06 12:29:12 incr backup 370 complete, 360 files, 4852734035
bytes, 23 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 23 other)
2007-09-10 16:00:07 full backup started for directory mesdoc (baseline
backup #370)
2007-09-10 18:27:08 full backup started for directory
documents_and_settings (baseline backup #370)
2007-09-10 18:45:17 full backup 371 complete, 145085 files, 118178367677
bytes, 17 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 17 other)
8--
As you can see, full backup 344 was deleted once, even if it was not the
oldest full backup, but at the next full backup, nothing was deleted,
and this is the problem.
Thanks for your help
--
Nicolas STRANSKY
Équipe Oncologie Moléculaire http://www.curie.fr/equipe/301
Institut Curie - UMR 144 - CNRS Tel : +33 1 42 34 63 40
26, rue d'Ulm - 75248 Paris Cedex 5 - FRANCEFax : +33 1 42 34 63 49
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] problem with ${FullKeepCnt} on a per-machine basis
On Tuesday 11 September 2007, Nicolas STRANSKY wrote:
I still have a problem with hosts with a particular ${FullKeepCnt}.
For example, this host should have no more than 6 full backups because
${FullKeepCnt} = [4, 2].
[...]
As you can see, full backup 344 was deleted once, even if it was not the
oldest full backup, but at the next full backup, nothing was deleted,
and this is the problem.
It looks like the code is only looking at the full backups it expects to
be there given the current settings, and does not allow for the fact that
the settings may be changed. It seems to me that it does not delete the
backups 329 and 339 (and maybe even 349 now), because it just does not
expect them to be there.
An error in the end condition of a loop maybe?
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] problem with ${FullKeepCnt} on a per-machine basis
Nicolas writes:
I still have a problem with hosts with a particular ${FullKeepCnt}.
For example, this host should have no more than 6 full backups because
${FullKeepCnt} = [4, 2].
I had deleted the oldest full backups so that I only have 6. But here is
what I get now (7 full backups):
Thanks for sending me the backups and config files off list.
The problem is that your host config file has this:
${FullKeepCnt} = [4, 2];
instead of
$Conf{FullKeepCnt} = [4, 2];
So your main config.pl file setting of $Conf{FullKeepCnt} = [4, 2, 2, 1]
is used instead, which means 9 full backups will be kept.
I ran a test with your backups file (with 7 full backups) and
the correct setting of $Conf{FullKeepCnt} and the oldest full
(154) does get deleted, leaving 6 full backups as requested.
Craig
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
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 backupc another backuppc server
I think your plan is good, except that I've been told that rsync takes a long time to duplicate all the hardlinks in the BackupPC pool. About a month ago I had the same question as you and somebody on this list recommended that I just set up BackupPC on the remote server and configure it to talk to the host machines directly. The only drawback (if it even is a drawback) is that the remote server won't have the exact same backup info as the local BackupPC server, since they will likely perform their backups at different times of the day. -Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have backuppc running on my LAN, and I want to send the backups over a T1 line to a remote server. I have about 30Gig of data on my backuppc partition. I tried using an archive host and it's to slow to stream all that data. So I installed backuppc on the remote server and setup rsync between the two servers. The backups should flow in ca cascade effect to the remote server now. What do more experienced users think of this setup? - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] files already in pool are downloaded
I should have mentioned that I do use rsync and have since discovered some pool files do not appear to be downloaded during backup. Thanks, David On Monday 10 September 2007 09:00, Rob Owens wrote: My understanding is that with tar and smb, all files are downloaded (and then discarded if they're already in the pool). Rsync is smart enough, though, not to download files already in the pool. -Rob David Koski wrote: I have been trying to get a good backup with backuppc (2.1.1) but it has been taking days. I ran a dump on the command line so I could see what is going on and I see the files that are in the pool are being downloaded. For example: pool 700 511/1008039 home/daler/My Documents/DRAWINGS/Lakeport/Pics/C_03.tif This is a large file and at 750kb/s takes a while. Is this expected? I thought if they are in the pool they do not need to be downloaded. Thanks in advance, David Koski [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] files already in pool are downloaded, Can't link..
Another wrinkle: Many of these same pool files get an error: Can't link /var/lib/backuppc/pc/bki/new/f%2f/fhome/path-and-file to /var/lib/backuppc/cpool/d/1/9/d19f21440531ec9046070a9ad79190c5 Yet, the pool file does not appear to have many links: -rw-r- 9 backuppc backuppc 38 2007-01-12 19:25 /var/lib/backuppc/cpool/d/1/9/d19f21440531ec9046070a9ad79190c5 Regards, David On Monday 10 September 2007 09:00, Rob Owens wrote: My understanding is that with tar and smb, all files are downloaded (and then discarded if they're already in the pool). Rsync is smart enough, though, not to download files already in the pool. -Rob David Koski wrote: I have been trying to get a good backup with backuppc (2.1.1) but it has been taking days. I ran a dump on the command line so I could see what is going on and I see the files that are in the pool are being downloaded. For example: pool 700 511/1008039 home/daler/My Documents/DRAWINGS/Lakeport/Pics/C_03.tif This is a large file and at 750kb/s takes a while. Is this expected? I thought if they are in the pool they do not need to be downloaded. Thanks in advance, David Koski [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] IncrLevels with rsync
Craig Barratt wrote:
Rob writes:
I just noticed the $Conf{IncrLevels} setting. I'm using rsync and
rsyncd as my transport, and I'd like to minimize my network usage since
I'm backing up over the internet. I don't care about disk or cpu usage.
Does setting:
$Conf{IncrLevels} = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];
do anything to reduce my network usage? Or does rsync and the pooling
mechanism already take care of that behind the scenes.
Yes, it will reduce the network usage. In 3.x each incremental depends
on the backup of the next lower level, so this means a new file that
appears after the last full will only be transferred once.
Craig
Thanks Craig.
Is there any disadvantage to setting $Conf{IncrLevels} = [1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6]; when using rsync as the transport? I'm trying to figure out if
it increases my chances of anything being missed. (Holger, I'm sure
you've got a good answer to this one).
-Rob
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] IncrLevels with rsync
To followup on Rob's question a bit:
When using traditional backups, there is a real benefit to using a media
rotation. I really like the Tower of Hanoi rotation
(0,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8,1,3,2,5,4,...)
I'm using the rotation above for both my regular BackupPC and my
BackupPC4AFS servers. I know it makes sense for the AFS backups, as they're
individual volume dumps.
But on a regular BackupPC server, backing up data files and using
BackupPC's pooling, what kind of rotation (IncrLevels) makes sense? My gut
instinct tells me that Tower of Hanoi is still good, but I'm not 100% sure
due to the pooling and linking.
Cheers, Stephen
--
Stephen Joyce
Systems AdministratorP A N I C
Physics Astronomy Department Physics Astronomy
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Network Infrastructure
voice: (919) 962-7214and Computing
fax: (919) 962-0480 http://www.panic.unc.edu
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Rob Owens wrote:
Craig Barratt wrote:
Rob writes:
I just noticed the $Conf{IncrLevels} setting. I'm using rsync and
rsyncd as my transport, and I'd like to minimize my network usage since
I'm backing up over the internet. I don't care about disk or cpu usage.
Does setting:
$Conf{IncrLevels} = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];
do anything to reduce my network usage? Or does rsync and the pooling
mechanism already take care of that behind the scenes.
Yes, it will reduce the network usage. In 3.x each incremental depends
on the backup of the next lower level, so this means a new file that
appears after the last full will only be transferred once.
Craig
Thanks Craig.
Is there any disadvantage to setting $Conf{IncrLevels} = [1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6]; when using rsync as the transport? I'm trying to figure out if
it increases my chances of anything being missed. (Holger, I'm sure
you've got a good answer to this one).
-Rob
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
--
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] files already in pool are downloaded, Can't link..
David Koski wrote: Another wrinkle: Many of these same pool files get an error: Can't link /var/lib/backuppc/pc/bki/new/f%2f/fhome/path-and-file to /var/lib/backuppc/cpool/d/1/9/d19f21440531ec9046070a9ad79190c5 Yet, the pool file does not appear to have many links: -rw-r- 9 backuppc backuppc 38 2007-01-12 19:25 /var/lib/backuppc/cpool/d/1/9/d19f21440531ec9046070a9ad79190c5 Is the entire /var/lib/backuppc/ on the same filesystem? Does it have free inodes (df -i)? -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] files already in pool are downloaded
Rob Owens wrote: My understanding is that with tar and smb, all files are downloaded (and then discarded if they're already in the pool). Rsync is smart enough, though, not to download files already in the pool. -Rob I was about to post the same thing. I moved/renamed some directories around on the server I am backing up, and it is downloading the entire file(s) again. Is there any interest in having BackupPC w/ rsync check the pool first before downloading? Is there a reason behind not doing it, or is it just something that hasn't been gotten to yet? Rich David Koski wrote: I have been trying to get a good backup with backuppc (2.1.1) but it has been taking days. I ran a dump on the command line so I could see what is going on and I see the files that are in the pool are being downloaded. For example: pool 700 511/1008039 home/daler/My Documents/DRAWINGS/Lakeport/Pics/C_03.tif This is a large file and at 750kb/s takes a while. Is this expected? I thought if they are in the pool they do not need to be downloaded. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] files already in pool are downloaded
Rich Rauenzahn wrote: Rob Owens wrote: My understanding is that with tar and smb, all files are downloaded (and then discarded if they're already in the pool). Rsync is smart enough, though, not to download files already in the pool. -Rob I was about to post the same thing. I moved/renamed some directories around on the server I am backing up, and it is downloading the entire file(s) again. Is there any interest in having BackupPC w/ rsync check the pool first before downloading? Is there a reason behind not doing it, or is it just something that hasn't been gotten to yet? I don't think the remote rsync passes enough information to match the pool hashes. The check is done against files of the same name/location from the last backup and when matches are found there, only file differences are transferred. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Not ending DumpPostUserCmd
Hi Does no one have an idea? Are more informations needed? I appreciate any help... Thanks! Regards, Tobias Tobias Brunner wrote: Hi everybody On one server, I have DumpPostUserCmd configured to execute a script. This is executed after the backup, but it doesn't end so the backup can never finish. Detailed description: The DumpPreUserCmd ($sshPath -q -x -l root $host /usr/local/bin/zimbra_pre_back.sh) stops the mailserver on the remote machine. That works perfectly and the backup runs correctly. After the backup has finished, the DumpPostUserCmd ($sshPath -q -x -l root $host /usr/local/bin/zimbra_post_back.sh) is executed. But this process does never end despite the exit 0 statement on the end of the bash script. When I do a ps -Af | grep 7224 (7224 is the running backup process) I get this: backuppc 7224 4502 0 01:00 ?00:02:38 /usr/bin/perl /usr/local/BackupPC/bin/BackupPC_dump server backuppc 7235 7224 0 01:01 ?00:00:01 [BackupPC_dump] defunct backuppc 7236 7224 1 01:01 ?00:09:49 [BackupPC_dump] defunct backuppc 7276 7224 0 01:24 ?00:00:00 /usr/bin/ssh -q -x -l root server.domain.ch /usr/local/bin/zimbra_post_back.sh After killing 7276 the backup finishes and I can see this in the Xfer Log: Executing DumpPreUserCmd: /usr/bin/ssh -q -x -l root server.domain.ch /usr/local/bin/zimbra_pre_back.sh Host server.domain.ch Stopping stats...Done Stopping mta...Done Stopping spell...Done Stopping snmp...Done Stopping antivirus...Done Stopping antispam...Done Stopping imapproxy...Done Stopping mailbox...Done Stopping logger...Done Stopping ldap...Done Successfully stopped Zimbra at 01:01:04 incr backup started back to 2007-08-30 13:28:11 (backup #9) for directory etc ... Executing DumpPostUserCmd: /usr/bin/ssh -q -x -l root server.domain.ch /usr/local/bin/zimbra_post_back.sh Host server.domain.ch Starting ldap...Done. Starting logger...Done. Starting mailbox...Done. Starting antispam...Done. Starting antivirus...Done. Starting snmp...Done. Starting spell...Done. Starting mta...Done. Starting stats...Done. Successfully started Zimbra at 01:25:22 That looks ok, except that the script does not end... Does anyone have an idea why that is? I have tried everything even using timeoutd on the remote host (which works perfectly) but the ssh process on the backuppc server does not exit =(. Thanks for your help Regards, Tobias zimbra_pre_back.sh: #!/bin/sh my_date=`date +%Y-%m-%d` my_time=`date +%H:%M:%S` echo Stopping time: $my_time /opt/zimbra/backup/zm_backup-$my_date.log su - zimbra -c /opt/zimbra/bin/zmcontrol stop | tee -a /opt/zimbra/backup/zm_backup-$my_date.log my_time=`date +%H:%M:%S` echo Successfully stopped Zimbra at $my_time exit 0 zimbra_post_back.sh: #!/bin/sh my_date=`date +%Y-%m-%d` my_time=`date +%H:%M:%S` echo Starting time: $my_time /opt/zimbra/backup/zm_backup-$my_date.log su - zimbra -c /opt/zimbra/bin/zmcontrol start | tee -a /opt/zimbra/backup/zm_backup-$my_date.log my_time=`date +%H:%M:%S` echo Successfully started Zimbra at $my_time exit 0 - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] files already in pool are downloaded
Les Mikesell wrote: Rich Rauenzahn wrote: Rob Owens wrote: My understanding is that with tar and smb, all files are downloaded (and then discarded if they're already in the pool). Rsync is smart enough, though, not to download files already in the pool. -Rob I was about to post the same thing. I moved/renamed some directories around on the server I am backing up, and it is downloading the entire file(s) again. Is there any interest in having BackupPC w/ rsync check the pool first before downloading? Is there a reason behind not doing it, or is it just something that hasn't been gotten to yet? I don't think the remote rsync passes enough information to match the pool hashes. The check is done against files of the same name/location from the last backup and when matches are found there, only file differences are transferred. I'm looking through the sources now.. I assumed that somehow the interface to File::RsyncP could return a checksum to BackupPC... can't tell if they are that tightly bound or not. How/when does compression occur? Ah, I see. It passes an I/O object into RsyncP. I think I'll move this to the devel list =-). Rich - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Not ending DumpPostUserCmd
Hi, On 11/09/2007, Tobias Brunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Starting stats...Done. Successfully started Zimbra at 01:25:22 That looks ok, except that the script does not end... Does anyone have an idea why that is? Maybe try to pass the -n option to ssh? Sometimes that makes a difference. -- cheers, -ambrose Gmail must die. Yes, I use it, but it still must die. PS: Don't trust everything you read in Wikipedia. (Very Important) - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] files already in pool are downloaded
Rich Rauenzahn wrote: I don't think the remote rsync passes enough information to match the pool hashes. The check is done against files of the same name/location from the last backup and when matches are found there, only file differences are transferred. I'm looking through the sources now.. I assumed that somehow the interface to File::RsyncP could return a checksum to BackupPC... can't tell if they are that tightly bound or not. How/when does compression occur? Ah, I see. It passes an I/O object into RsyncP. I think I'll move this to the devel list =-). Don't forget that the other end of the conversation is running stock rsync and that you may have collisions in your initial file hash. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Not ending DumpPostUserCmd
Le jeudi 6 septembre 2007, Tobias Brunner a écrit : evening, [...] echo Stopping time: $my_time /opt/zimbra/backup/zm_backup-$my_date.log su - zimbra -c /opt/zimbra/bin/zmcontrol stop | tee -a my guess is around the stdout and error redirections, i think they are not close properly by redirection or tee program, so the ssh connection is still active because of that. i would try a ssh -e which may help with coding correct escape char at the end of script or ssh -t may help also alocating tty am not sure about those tips, says us if it's help. mna. -- Ma barbe vit puisqu'elle pousse. Si je la coupe, elle ne crie pas. Une plante vit et ne crie pas quand on la coupe. Donc, ma barbe est une plante. Boris Vian, Les b�tisseurs d'empire. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Not ending DumpPostUserCmd
Your ssh isn't exiting because a child process, in this case zimbra, remains. As some others have suggested, this is due to ssh waiting on both stdin and stdout of the child process to close. For example, if you do the following, you'll experience a hang: pc1$ ssh pc2 pc2$ xterm pc2$ logout ...hang without exit.. until you close the xterm. Something like the following should behave more like you expect: pc1$ ssh pc2 pc2$ xterm /dev/null /dev/null pc2$ logout ...ssh session terminates pc1$ Hope this helps. Cheers, Stephen -- Stephen Joyce Systems AdministratorP A N I C Physics Astronomy Department Physics Astronomy University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Network Infrastructure voice: (919) 962-7214and Computing fax: (919) 962-0480 http://www.panic.unc.edu Some people make the world turn and others just watch it spin. -- Jimmy Buffet On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Tobias Brunner wrote: Hi Does no one have an idea? Are more informations needed? I appreciate any help... Thanks! Regards, Tobias Tobias Brunner wrote: Hi everybody On one server, I have DumpPostUserCmd configured to execute a script. This is executed after the backup, but it doesn't end so the backup can never finish. Detailed description: The DumpPreUserCmd ($sshPath -q -x -l root $host /usr/local/bin/zimbra_pre_back.sh) stops the mailserver on the remote machine. That works perfectly and the backup runs correctly. After the backup has finished, the DumpPostUserCmd ($sshPath -q -x -l root $host /usr/local/bin/zimbra_post_back.sh) is executed. But this process does never end despite the exit 0 statement on the end of the bash script. When I do a ps -Af | grep 7224 (7224 is the running backup process) I get this: backuppc 7224 4502 0 01:00 ?00:02:38 /usr/bin/perl /usr/local/BackupPC/bin/BackupPC_dump server backuppc 7235 7224 0 01:01 ?00:00:01 [BackupPC_dump] defunct backuppc 7236 7224 1 01:01 ?00:09:49 [BackupPC_dump] defunct backuppc 7276 7224 0 01:24 ?00:00:00 /usr/bin/ssh -q -x -l root server.domain.ch /usr/local/bin/zimbra_post_back.sh After killing 7276 the backup finishes and I can see this in the Xfer Log: Executing DumpPreUserCmd: /usr/bin/ssh -q -x -l root server.domain.ch /usr/local/bin/zimbra_pre_back.sh Host server.domain.ch Stopping stats...Done Stopping mta...Done Stopping spell...Done Stopping snmp...Done Stopping antivirus...Done Stopping antispam...Done Stopping imapproxy...Done Stopping mailbox...Done Stopping logger...Done Stopping ldap...Done Successfully stopped Zimbra at 01:01:04 incr backup started back to 2007-08-30 13:28:11 (backup #9) for directory etc ... Executing DumpPostUserCmd: /usr/bin/ssh -q -x -l root server.domain.ch /usr/local/bin/zimbra_post_back.sh Host server.domain.ch Starting ldap...Done. Starting logger...Done. Starting mailbox...Done. Starting antispam...Done. Starting antivirus...Done. Starting snmp...Done. Starting spell...Done. Starting mta...Done. Starting stats...Done. Successfully started Zimbra at 01:25:22 That looks ok, except that the script does not end... Does anyone have an idea why that is? I have tried everything even using timeoutd on the remote host (which works perfectly) but the ssh process on the backuppc server does not exit =(. Thanks for your help Regards, Tobias zimbra_pre_back.sh: #!/bin/sh my_date=`date +%Y-%m-%d` my_time=`date +%H:%M:%S` echo Stopping time: $my_time /opt/zimbra/backup/zm_backup-$my_date.log su - zimbra -c /opt/zimbra/bin/zmcontrol stop | tee -a /opt/zimbra/backup/zm_backup-$my_date.log my_time=`date +%H:%M:%S` echo Successfully stopped Zimbra at $my_time exit 0 zimbra_post_back.sh: #!/bin/sh my_date=`date +%Y-%m-%d` my_time=`date +%H:%M:%S` echo Starting time: $my_time /opt/zimbra/backup/zm_backup-$my_date.log su - zimbra -c /opt/zimbra/bin/zmcontrol start | tee -a /opt/zimbra/backup/zm_backup-$my_date.log my_time=`date +%H:%M:%S` echo Successfully started Zimbra at $my_time exit 0 - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now http://get.splunk.com/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all
[BackupPC-users] Backing up one share uncompressed
Hi, I am using compression to backup all my shares on all my pcs. There is however one share with my music collection on it - I would like this share only to be backed up uncompressed. Is this possible? What do I need to do? Thanks! Mark. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Got fatal error during xfer (fileListReceive failed)
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 23:49 -0700, Craig Barratt wrote: Robert writes: I removed the -v option from config.pl, restarted backuppc, this is the log: Running: /usr/bin/ssh -q -l root robert-laptop /usr/bin/rsync --server --sender --numeric-ids --perms --owner --group -D --links --times --block-size=2048 --recursive -D --ignore-times . /home/ Xfer PIDs are now 5985 Got remote protocol 1651076184 Fatal error (bad version): Xlib: connection to :0.0 refused by server Ssh is saying Xlib: connection to :0.0 refused by server. Add the -x option to rsync (to disable X11 port forwarding). Note that the user's and global ssh_config override the command-line options, so if you get the same error you should disable X11 port forwarding there too. Craig I have added -x but this makes no difference. I have (I think) disabled X11 port forwarding in /etc/ssh/ssh_config (on the laptop). Again no difference. Error is currently: Running: /usr/bin/ssh -q -x -l root robert-laptop /usr/bin/rsync --server --sender --numeric-ids --perms --owner --group -D --links --times --block-size=2048 --recursive -D --ignore-times . /home/ Xfer PIDs are now 9126 Got remote protocol 1651076184 Fatal error (bad version): Xlib: connection to :0.0 refused by server Xlib: Read EOF: Tried again: got 0 bytes fileListReceive() failed Done: 0 files, 0 bytes Got fatal error during xfer (fileListReceive failed) Backup aborted (fileListReceive failed) Robert - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
