>(null): version 2.4.1p1
>...
In addition to the /etc/amandates issue, the "(null)" above indicates
another problem. I suspect you forgot to add an extra "amandad" on the
end of your /etc/inetd.conf line. It should look something like this
(your path will be different):
amanda dgram udp w
On Nov 8, 2000, Nathan Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't amandates meant to be created automagically?
As in user `amanda' creating files in /etc? :-)
> If it is, then why would it be creating it as a directory?
Amanda certainly doesn't create it as a directory.
--
Alexandre Oliva En
PROTECTED]'; 'Peter Schaffrath'; 'Amanda user's group'
Subject: Re: AMDump Reporting Results Missing
On Nov 8, 2000, Nathan Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sendsize: reading /etc/amandates: Is a directory
Here's the answer. It should be a file,
On Nov 8, 2000, Nathan Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sendsize: reading /etc/amandates: Is a directory
Here's the answer. It should be a file, not a directory.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.c
John and others who are helping me with this problem heres the latest
increment.
>>That's it?? That would certainly explain the message. The file is
>>very incomplete.
I thought that it looked a little small, but this is the first time I have
ever tried to get Amanda working, so I was unsu
>>> What is in /tmp/amanda/sendsize*debug on paperbark after a failed amdump?
>
>sendsize: debug 1 pid 31909 ruid 0 euid 0 start time Wed Nov 8 08:30:17
>2000
>/usr/local/amanda/libexec/sendsize: version 2.4.1p1
That's it?? That would certainly explain the message. The file is
very incomplete.
Thanks again for your respones... here are the answers to your questions.
>> What happens when you run amcheck now that you've fixed disklist?
Amanda Tape Server Host Check
-
/usr/local/amanda/dumps: 2410172 KB disk space available, that's plenty.
NOTE: skipping tape-
>I did have another look at the Amanda FAQamatic and found an article on
>there saying that the UDP packets may not be large enough, but it also says
>that this should no longer occurr since they increased the packet size from
>1 kB to 64 kb.
Actually, it was 8 KBytes -> 64 KBytes, but that only
#x27;s group'
Subject: RE: AMDump Reporting Results Missing
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Nathan Bird wrote:
> In disklist I was under the impression that you had to write the
following.
>
> hostname diskdev dumptype [spindle [interface]]
>
> The diskdev that it is referring to is
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Nathan Bird wrote:
> In disklist I was under the impression that you had to write the following.
>
> hostname diskdev dumptype [spindle [interface]]
>
> The diskdev that it is referring to is the tape device isn't it?
Nice idea :-)
No, "diskdev" is the harddisk (sig!) on th
D]]On Behalf Of John R. Jackson
Sent: Friday, 3 November 2000 11:00 AM
To: Nathan Bird
Cc: 'Amanda user's group'
Subject: Re: AMDump Reporting Results Missing
>paperbark /dev/nst0 lev 0 FAILED [ missing result for
>/dev/nst0 in paperbark response ]
Ummm
>paperbark /dev/nst0 lev 0 FAILED [ missing result for
>/dev/nst0 in paperbark response ]
Ummm, that's a bizarre message. Why are you trying to back up /dev/nst0?
Isn't that your tape device?
It looks like your disklist has that in the first field instead of a
disk or file
12 matches
Mail list logo
