Re: Amanda, dump, kernel 2.4, ext3, uncertainty
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Ray Curtis wrote: ms == Matthew Saltzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ms On 2 Jul 2002, Gordon Messmer wrote: On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 12:45, Ray Curtis wrote: Yes, Amanda will make very reliable backups on your network, and yes dump is broken. However Amanda being the very powerful system it is, look to tar, cpio as alternatives. Bitch is that filesystems with extended attributes need to be backed up by their specific version of dump. Tar and cpio aren't going to know how to back up the extended attributes. From that point of view, Linux 2.4 is broken. Badly, it seems. ms So is there a recommended course of action hidden here? Should I be using ms tar or cpio with amanda or something else entirely? Sure go ahead and use Amanda, it was only pointed out that dump is broken with the 2.4 kernel, but that will apply to any software using dump. Go ahead and use Amanda with tar, it is a good package, the only reason some prefer Arkeia, Bru is that Amanda has no gui frontend. But amanda is used by many sys-admins to backup both small and large networks. OK Thanks. BTW, found a note in the Amanda mailing list (where this is a recurring flame fest) referring to a note on one of the kernel mailing lists that the cache-coherence problem with dump was resolved as of Linus's 2.4.11. I don't know if that fix is universal (or at least in Red Hat's kernels) now with 2.4.18, but if so, it reduces the problem somewhat. Now, as I understand it, at least dump will make correct backups of unmounted file systems or in single user mode. Quiescent mounted file systems should also be OK. Not sure yet of the impact on ext3 file systems, though, but it seems like it ought to be the same. I'll probably stick with tar, though I understand it's slower. Is Gordon's comment about extended FS attributes a reference to non-ext2 FS's? Are there other disadvantages to using tar with Amanda? Thanks. -- Matthew Saltzman Clemson University Math Sciences [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Amanda, dump, kernel 2.4, ext3, uncertainty
On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 22:25, Ray Curtis wrote: ms == Matthew Saltzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ms On 2 Jul 2002, Gordon Messmer wrote: On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 12:45, Ray Curtis wrote: Yes, Amanda will make very reliable backups on your network, and yes dump is broken. However Amanda being the very powerful system it is, look to tar, cpio as alternatives. Bitch is that filesystems with extended attributes need to be backed up by their specific version of dump. Tar and cpio aren't going to know how to back up the extended attributes. From that point of view, Linux 2.4 is broken. Badly, it seems. We use amanda on to backup all our servers (currently 6.x) I have been waiting for a lull in the workload to upgrade to 7.[2,3] so we can use ext3 and all the latest versions of software. From the sounds of this thread dump is broken and tar (what I currently use as the backup program used by amanda) will not understand extended attributes. Does ext3 have these extended attributes and therefor not e properly backed up with amanda using tar? Bret ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Amanda, dump, kernel 2.4, ext3, uncertainty
On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 06:46, Matthew Saltzman wrote: I'll probably stick with tar, though I understand it's slower. Is Gordon's comment about extended FS attributes a reference to non-ext2 FS's? Are there other disadvantages to using tar with Amanda? Specifically, I was referring to XFS with ACL's, which I use. However, any FS with extended attributes will not be backed up correctly by anything other than the fs-specific dump. Another FS with extended attributes is ext3, as patched by the group at http://acl.bestbits.at/ (down at the moment?). They do not provide a dump utility for backup, but they do provide star which will get ACL's, but not other extended attributes. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Amanda, dump, kernel 2.4, ext3, uncertainty
ms == Matthew Saltzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ms I am looking at instituting Amanda-based backups on a small network. ms Amanda uses dump to actually back up the files. I've seen various ms references to problems with the reliability of dump with kernel 2.4 and/or ms ext3. For example, I'ver heard tell that Linus says that dump in kernel ms 2.4 is badly broken, or words to that effect. So, the question is, Can ms Amanda make reliable backups using dump in RHL 7.3? If not, what's the ms best (preferably free) solution? Yes, Amanda will make very reliable backups on your network, and yes dump is broken. However Amanda being the very powerful system it is, look to tar, cpio as alternatives. -- Ray Curtis mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccux.com ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Amanda, dump, kernel 2.4, ext3, uncertainty
On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 12:45, Ray Curtis wrote: Yes, Amanda will make very reliable backups on your network, and yes dump is broken. However Amanda being the very powerful system it is, look to tar, cpio as alternatives. Bitch is that filesystems with extended attributes need to be backed up by their specific version of dump. Tar and cpio aren't going to know how to back up the extended attributes. From that point of view, Linux 2.4 is broken. Badly, it seems. ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Amanda, dump, kernel 2.4, ext3, uncertainty
On 2 Jul 2002, Gordon Messmer wrote: On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 12:45, Ray Curtis wrote: Yes, Amanda will make very reliable backups on your network, and yes dump is broken. However Amanda being the very powerful system it is, look to tar, cpio as alternatives. Bitch is that filesystems with extended attributes need to be backed up by their specific version of dump. Tar and cpio aren't going to know how to back up the extended attributes. From that point of view, Linux 2.4 is broken. Badly, it seems. So is there a recommended course of action hidden here? Should I be using tar or cpio with amanda or something else entirely? Thanks. -- Matthew Saltzman Clemson University Math Sciences [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: Amanda, dump, kernel 2.4, ext3, uncertainty
ms == Matthew Saltzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ms On 2 Jul 2002, Gordon Messmer wrote: On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 12:45, Ray Curtis wrote: Yes, Amanda will make very reliable backups on your network, and yes dump is broken. However Amanda being the very powerful system it is, look to tar, cpio as alternatives. Bitch is that filesystems with extended attributes need to be backed up by their specific version of dump. Tar and cpio aren't going to know how to back up the extended attributes. From that point of view, Linux 2.4 is broken. Badly, it seems. ms So is there a recommended course of action hidden here? Should I be using ms tar or cpio with amanda or something else entirely? Sure go ahead and use Amanda, it was only pointed out that dump is broken with the 2.4 kernel, but that will apply to any software using dump. Go ahead and use Amanda with tar, it is a good package, the only reason some prefer Arkeia, Bru is that Amanda has no gui frontend. But amanda is used by many sys-admins to backup both small and large networks. -- Ray Curtis mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccux.com ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
