John, remember this recent thread? I followed your suggestion and have
included more info below.
On Thu, 10 May 2001, John R. Jackson wrote:
> >are you sure it's fixed? ...
>
> H. I sure thought it was.
>
> Do you have one of those chunks still laying around? What does:
>
> dd if=th
>no, amflush removed them.
OK. If it happens again (look before you leap :-), try the dd.
I've taken a note to try to reproduce this here as well.
>Todd Pfaff
John R. Jackson, Technical Software Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2001, John R. Jackson wrote:
> >are you sure it's fixed? ...
>
> H. I sure thought it was.
>
> Do you have one of those chunks still laying around?
no, amflush removed them.
--
Todd Pfaff \ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computing and Information Servic
>are you sure it's fixed? ...
H. I sure thought it was.
Do you have one of those chunks still laying around? What does:
dd if=the-chunk-file bs=32k count=1
have to say?
>Todd Pfaff
John R. Jackson, Technical Software Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 May 2001, John R. Jackson wrote:
> >when running amflush on amanda dumps containing chunk files, can the
> >warning messages about cruft files that correspond to chunks be ignored?
>
> Yes (as I recall). Or you can upgrade your server to 2.4.2p2 where the
> problem is fixed :-).
are
>when running amflush on amanda dumps containing chunk files, can the
>warning messages about cruft files that correspond to chunks be ignored?
Yes (as I recall). Or you can upgrade your server to 2.4.2p2 where the
problem is fixed :-).
>are these chunks really being taped along with the rest o
when running amflush on amanda dumps containing chunk files, can the
warning messages about cruft files that correspond to chunks be ignored?
for example...
NOTES:
amflush: visual._1.0.1: ignoring cruft file.
are these chunks really being taped along with the rest of the dump,
despite the warn
