John writes:
> We were having a weird problem with nmblookup firing for a host that
> was disabled with:
>
> $Conf{BackupsDisable} = '2';
>
> using BackupPC 3.1.0. The same thing happend when set to 1. My claim
> is that BackupPC shouldn't be attempting to resolve any host with
> BackupsDisabl
Andrew writes:
> ping -c 1 shipping
>
> ... the trick being it is _not_ doing nmblookup to get the IP address of
> the windows host. Instead, it's trying to DNS "shipping" using opendns.
> OpenDNS creates the same issue as my ISP's DNS: it will direct any host
> that isn't found to its own search
Andrew wrote:
> [...] Instead, it's trying to DNS "shipping" using opendns.
> OpenDNS creates the same issue as my ISP's DNS: it will direct any host
> that isn't found to its own search servers.
Hi Andrew,
This is a VERY good example of why you should avoid OpenDNS or any other DNS
service tha
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 22:21 -0700, Craig Barratt wrote:
> Andrew writes:
>
> > A few days ago I noticed that none of my hosts are backing up. All
but
> > two give the error, "no ping (ping too slow: 38.94msec (threshold is
> > 35msec))" -- or some similar ping.
> >
> > One such host is named "shi
> Might it be a problem with permissions?
check to see if Selinux is turned on, and if so, turn it off
--
"I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends"
- Abraham Lincoln
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin
This is an edited version of a previous post
ok, I read everything about samba 3.2, smb.conf and authentication, but it did
not really make me smart.
Could you give me a more detailed hint?
btw
it seems very relevant to the problem, that I cant see my old backups anymore
in my backup
ok, I read everything about samba 3.2, smb.conf and authentication, but it did
not really make me smart.
Could you give me a more detailed hint?
+--
|This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to [EMAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:57:39PM -0600, dan wrote:
>> this was on an rsync incremental. There was no error in the Xfers log, it
>> is like the file was not there. The atime on the file is from before the
>> backup so I know the file was there. I have only seen this o
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:57:39PM -0600, dan wrote:
> this was on an rsync incremental. There was no error in the Xfers log, it
> is like the file was not there. The atime on the file is from before the
> backup so I know the file was there. I have only seen this one time.
>
> The idea of mark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rob Owens wrote:
> Adam Goryachev wrote:
>> Rob Owens wrote:
>>> Adam Goryachev wrote:
Holger Parplies wrote:
> a) rsync full backups are only minimally more expensive than incrementals
> in
>terms of bandwidth. Still, every file
On 09/05 12:51 , Adam Goryachev wrote:
> Also assuming you use backuppc 3.0 or newer, which means it is not
> available for me as I am using debian stable packages. (Although, I hear
> the next debian stable should be out pretty soon, in which case I'll get
> the newer version then :)
Check out ww
Adam Goryachev wrote:
> Rob Owens wrote:
>> Adam Goryachev wrote:
>>> Holger Parplies wrote:
a) rsync full backups are only minimally more expensive than incrementals
in
terms of bandwidth. Still, every file needs to be completely read from
disk
on both sides, so th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rob Owens wrote:
> Adam Goryachev wrote:
>> Holger Parplies wrote:
>>> a) rsync full backups are only minimally more expensive than incrementals in
>>>terms of bandwidth. Still, every file needs to be completely read from
>>> disk
>>>on both s
Tino Schwarze wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:29:53PM -0600, dan wrote:
>> I have a thought here, thought id run it through the users list before
>> dropping it on the devs.
>>
>> My idea was to add a small step to the backuppc process to validate that all
>> files that should be transfered wer
Christian,
Here is a good post on Full vs. Incremental from a year ago. In
particular, check out the two threads that Holger links to.
http://www.mail-archive.com/backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06101.html
-Rob
Christian Völker wrote:
> Yohoo!
>
> |> I keep repeating this, so you migh
Adam Goryachev wrote:
> Holger Parplies wrote:
>> a) rsync full backups are only minimally more expensive than incrementals in
>>terms of bandwidth. Still, every file needs to be completely read from
>> disk
>>on both sides, so there is a good reason to offer an "incremental" mode as
>>
Hi,
in fact I was backuping only two folders :
$Conf{TarShareName} = [
'/etc',
'/home/serveur/data/Photos'
];
This my backup drive :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/lib/backuppc/pc/localhost] $ durep -td 2
[ /mnt/backup/backuppc/pc/localhost45.1G (9 files, 3 dirs) ]
22.5G [##
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yohoo!
|> I keep repeating this, so you might all be bored, but still:
No, definetly not bored. For this it looks like it's too complicated :-\
|> When you factor pooling into the equasion, this means that the difference
|> between rsync full and inc
18 matches
Mail list logo
