[BackupPC-users] Connection failed, nt status bad network name - Solved

2013-03-12 Thread Jeff Boyce
Greetings -

This is to follow-up the problem I wrote about last week with the subject 
Connection failed, nt status bad network name.  I am not receiving list 
emails for some reason so I can't respond with my solution and keep the 
message thread.

The initial symptoms of the problem I was having was showing that backuppc 
was showing ping failures to the network host name, and a message of 
NT_STATUS_BAD_NETWORK_NAME.  This led me to believe that I had a bad name 
resolution setup on my network.  That was not the case, and the message that 
backuppc provides stating that ping to host have failed, is clearly a lie, 
and as a result is very misleading when trying to diagnose the true problem.

In my research I saw references to invoking backuppc from the command line 
to get more verbose error.  So I tried that, and saw that pings were 
actually succeeding, even though the web interface was continuing to show 
the ping failure error rate climbing.

bash-4.1$ /usr/share/BackupPC/bin/BackupPC_dump -f -v jab-opti755

cmdSystemOrEval: about to system /bin/ping -c 1 -w 3 jab-opti755

cmdSystemOrEval: finished: got output PING jab-opti755.mei.lan 
(192.168.112.125) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from jab-opti755.mei.lan (192.168.112.125): icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 
time=0.125 ms

--- jab-opti755.mei.lan ping statistics ---

1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.125/0.125/0.125/0.000 ms

cmdSystemOrEval: about to system /bin/ping -c 1 -w 3 jab-opti755

cmdSystemOrEval: finished: got output PING jab-opti755.mei.lan 
(192.168.112.125) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from jab-opti755.mei.lan (192.168.112.125): icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 
time=0.252 ms

--- jab-opti755.mei.lan ping statistics ---

1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.252/0.252/0.252/0.000 ms

CheckHostAlive: returning 0.252

Running: /usr/bin/smbclient jab-opti755\\f -U jeffb -E -N -d 1 -c 
tarmode\ full -Tc -

full backup started for share f

started full dump, share=f

Xfer PIDs are now 12258,12257

xferPids 12258,12257

cmdExecOrEval: about to exec /usr/bin/smbclient jab-opti755\\f -U 
jeffb -E -N -d 1 -c tarmode\ full -Tc -

Anonymous login successful

Domain=[WORKGROUP] OS=[Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate 6002 Service Pack 2] 
Server=[Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate 6.0]

tree connect failed: NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED

Anonymous login successful

Domain=[WORKGROUP] OS=[Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate 6002 Service Pack 2] 
Server=[Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate 6.0]

tree connect failed: NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED

tarExtract: Done: 0 errors, 0 filesExist, 0 sizeExist, 0 sizeExistComp, 0 
filesTotal, 0 sizeTotal

Got fatal error during xfer (No files dumped for share f)

cmdSystemOrEval: about to system /bin/ping -c 1 -w 3 jab-opti755

cmdSystemOrEval: finished: got output PING jab-opti755.mei.lan 
(192.168.112.125) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from jab-opti755.mei.lan (192.168.112.125): icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 
time=0.268 ms

--- jab-opti755.mei.lan ping statistics ---

1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.268/0.268/0.268/0.000 ms

cmdSystemOrEval: about to system /bin/ping -c 1 -w 3 jab-opti755

cmdSystemOrEval: finished: got output PING jab-opti755.mei.lan 
(192.168.112.125) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from jab-opti755.mei.lan (192.168.112.125): icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 
time=0.209 ms

--- jab-opti755.mei.lan ping statistics ---

1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.209/0.209/0.209/0.000 ms

CheckHostAlive: returning 0.209

Backup aborted (No files dumped for share f)

Not saving this as a partial backup since it has fewer files than the prior 
one (got 0 and 0 files versus 0)

dump failed: No files dumped for share f



From the backuppc user, I tried the following and was allowed access.  Hmm, 
why can't backuppc get access to run the backup?

bash-4.1$ smbclient -L jab-opti755 -W workgroup -U jeffb

Enter jeffb's password:

Domain=[JAB-OPTI755] OS=[Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate 6002 Service Pack 2] 
Server=[Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate 6.0]

Sharename Type Comment

-  ---

ADMIN$ Disk Remote Admin

C$ Disk Default share

D$ Disk Default share

F Disk

F$ Disk Default share

IPC$ IPC Remote IPC

Domain=[JAB-OPTI755] OS=[Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate 6002 Service Pack 2] 
Server=[Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate 6.0]

Server Comment

- ---

Workgroup Master

- ---



In the end I made one change to the host configuration file, and one change 
to the server configuration file.  The host change that I made was the dhcp 
flag. I unchecked the box (dhcp=0).  This change eliminated the bad network 
name error, but did not resolve the issue.  Instead it just showed a new 
network error NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED.  This indicated to me that somewhere 
there was a permissions problem.

Searching through Google results on this showed a lot of discussion about 

Re: [BackupPC-users] Connection failed, nt status bad network name - Solved

2013-03-12 Thread Holger Parplies
Hi,

Jeff Boyce wrote on 2013-03-12 13:01:05 -0700 [[BackupPC-users] Connection 
failed, nt status bad network name - Solved]:
 [...]
 I am not receiving list emails for some reason [...]

sorry, I somehow missed sending you an explicit copy of my previous reply, so
you probably didn't get that.

Les Mikesell wrote on 2013-03-12 15:23:40 -0500 [Re: [BackupPC-users] 
Connection failed, nt status bad network name - Solved]:
 On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Jeff Boyce jbo...@meridianenv.com wrote:
 
  The initial symptoms of the problem I was having was showing that backuppc
  was showing ping failures to the network host name, and a message of
  NT_STATUS_BAD_NETWORK_NAME.  This led me to believe that I had a bad name
  resolution setup on my network.  That was not the case, and the message that
  backuppc provides stating that ping to host have failed, is clearly a lie,

Well, not really. At that point in time, it was not able to reach the target
host because of a misconfiguration.

  and as a result is very misleading when trying to diagnose the true problem.

Yes, it is somewhat cryptic. But it's not always easy to anticipate all
possible causes for a failure. Should each error message state,

  This could be caused by a misconfiguration. Please check your setup and
  read the documentation again to make sure you have understood each setting.

Wouldn't that be annoying?

  In my research I saw references to invoking backuppc from the command line
  to get more verbose error.  So I tried that, and saw that pings were
  actually succeeding, even though the web interface was continuing to show
  the ping failure error rate climbing.
 
 Was this before or after changing the DHCP option?   I don't see any
 nmblookup attempt here.

That doesn't really matter :-). You called 'BackupPC_dump' without the '-d'
flag. The scheduler doesn't do that for hosts with the DHCP option set. Once
you set the flag to 0, BackupPC does (practically) the same as you did on the
command line (I didn't check the exact options ...), and you get:

 Anonymous login successful
 
 Domain=[WORKGROUP] OS=[Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate 6002 Service Pack 2] 
 Server=[Windows Vista (TM) Ultimate 6.0]
 
 tree connect failed: NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED

(no longer BAD_NETWORK_NAME).

  In the end I made one change to the host configuration file, and one change
  to the server configuration file.  The host change that I made was the dhcp
  flag. I unchecked the box (dhcp=0).  This change eliminated the bad network
  name error, but did not resolve the issue.

That's not quite correct. It eliminated the first issue and exposed a second
one. I'm sure you would have received an instant answer on this one. Even I
spotted the bogus '-N' switch at first glance, and I've never even used smb
XferMethod.
You'll have to admit that this was a bit hard for us to anticipate - while you
gave much detail, the one thing you *didn't* post was your SmbClient*Cmd
settings ;-).

  [...]
  It looks like maybe the smbclient -N flag should be removed from the stock
  configuration file if it is affecting all the distributions.
 
 [...]
 If there were any development on the base system it probably should be
 changed there now - but none has happened for a while.

In other words: it will be fixed in BackupPC-3.2.2. The only question is
whether there will ever be a 3.2.2 release ;-).

Regards,
Holger

--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/