LaValley, Brian E wrote:
I have a Fedora Core 3 amanda server. I have specified an nfs mounted
directory for one of the holding disks. Does anyone know why amcheck finds
much less space available on this drive than a command like 'df' does?
You need to explain a little more. "amcheck" checks
Paul Bijnens wrote:
LaValley, Brian E wrote:
I have a Fedora Core 3 amanda server. I have specified an nfs mounted
directory for one of the holding disks. Does anyone know why amcheck
finds
much less space available on this drive than a command like 'df' does?
You need to explain a little
--- Paul Bijnens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit
:
> tanguy yoann wrote:
>
> >>Perhaps on the one system something other than
> >>amanda/samba
> >>prevents (or causes) this archive bit to flip.
> That
>
> You need administrator privilege on the PC to be
> able
> to reset the archive bit. (At leas
tanguy yoann wrote:
Indeed, in one of my share, the archive bit is cleared
after a full backup, and in the other, it isn't
cleared. I don't understand why. There is the same
files in the two shares. It's very strange.
The same user access with smclient at the two shares.
"smclient": command no
Good point, my tape drive maximum sustained data transfer rate is 60 MBytes
per second on a Gigabit ethernet network. Is that too slow?
Amcheck produces:
Amanda Tape Server Host Check
-
WARNING: holding disk /backup/amanda/dumps/dump2: only 88344348 KB free
(104857600 K
LaValley, Brian E wrote:
Good point, my tape drive maximum sustained data transfer rate is 60 MBytes
per second on a Gigabit ethernet network. Is that too slow?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Those modern drives sometimes (usually) slow down their motors when
the bytes do not flow in fast enough, so that t
So, you guys may recall I was having problems with amcheck and amdump
taking ridiculously long. Well, it turns out that because on that client
box, there was a dead Samba mount. As you guys know, when there's a
Samba mount that's timed out, or the remote machine is unavailable, any
operation ch
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:11:04 -0600 Graeme Humphries <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, you guys may recall I was having problems with amcheck and amdump taking
> ridiculously long. Well, it turns out that because on that client box, there
> was a dead Samba mount. As you guys know, wh
Graeme Humphries wrote:
So, you guys may recall I was having problems with amcheck and amdump
taking ridiculously long. Well, it turns out that because on that client
box, there was a dead Samba mount. As you guys know, when there's a
Samba mount that's timed out, or the remote machine is unava
Frank Smith wrote:
I don't think Amanda checks all your mounts. However, many filesystem
operations 'stat' their way up the directory structure to /, and if
you mount things directly in / (such as /remotedir) instead of down
a level (/mnt/remotedir) many of those ops will hang if that mount
is
--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 11:02:47 -0600 Graeme Humphries <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Smith wrote:
>
>> I don't think Amanda checks all your mounts. However, many filesystem
>> operations 'stat' their way up the directory structure to /, and if
>> you mount things directly in / (su
Frank Smith wrote:
I think Paul's point is valid about tar's one-filesystem flag, I haven't
tried it, but perhaps if you exclude ./tmp it won't stat /tmp/somedir.
The real solution, of course, is to not have hung mounts ;-).
I agree. :)
If you call df with a filename or directory argument
Hi,
In the last few days I've been getting this error:
[/usr/freeware/bin/tar returned 2]
in the sendbackup report on a client running 2.4.4p3-20040805 and the
whole backup run fails. This is the system disk "/" on the client.
Anyone has run into this before?
The client is an O200 SGI runni
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 02:59:03PM -0400, Jean-Francois Malouin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the last few days I've been getting this error:
>
> [/usr/freeware/bin/tar returned 2]
Return code (exit status) 2 seems, I think, to be reserved by tar
for non-fatal situations from which it can continue doi
For UNIX systems, return code 2 is "No such file or directory" or "File not
found", depending on the OS.
This information is found in the /usr/include/errno.h on most UNIX systems (or
wherever your version of UNIX stores the programming include files). Most
programs will exit with a failure
Indeed, amtape produces the same response. Does this help us to
determine the cause?
Thanks!
On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:49 PM, Jon LaBadie wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 02:04:13PM -0400, James Jacocks wrote:
We are currently experiencing the below issue using
amlabel. I have tried wi
Thanks for the help, everyone. This was a permissions issue.
Thanks!
On Aug 24, 2005, at 5:02 PM, James Jacocks wrote:
Indeed, amtape produces the same response. Does this help us to
determine the cause?
Thanks!
On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:49 PM, Jon LaBadie wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 0
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 05:46:25PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> For UNIX systems, return code 2 is "No such file or directory" or "File not
> found",
>
> This information is found in the /usr/include/errno.h on most UNIX systems
>
Unix standards specify a zero ("0") exit status for succe
18 matches
Mail list logo
