2016-01-21 23:58 GMT+01:00 Stephen :
> I have glanced at the code and also believe that BackupPC_fsck is running
> unnecessarily after every backup attempt, whether it is successful or not.
Please check if you have a file called "needFsck.dump" in your refCnt directory.
This file is created when b
On 22/01/16 09:58, Stephen wrote:
> I have glanced at the code and also believe that BackupPC_fsck is running
> unnecessarily after every backup attempt, whether it is successful or not.
>
> In my xferLogs, BackupPC_refCountUpdate is being called twice at the end of
> a backup. Once like this:
>
>
I have glanced at the code and also believe that BackupPC_fsck is running
unnecessarily after every backup attempt, whether it is successful or not.
In my xferLogs, BackupPC_refCountUpdate is being called twice at the end of
a backup. Once like this:
Xfer PIDs are now
Running BackupPC_refCountU
On 22/01/16 09:20, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> 2016-01-21 23:09 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev
> :
>> Can you run dmesg, and see if you have any lines like this:
>> [11613050.504117] rsync_bpc[7279]: segfault at 7f9ee5c7e428 ip
>> 004473af sp 7ffc3d7bdf80 error 4 in rsync_bpc[40+75000
2016-01-21 23:09 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev :
> Can you run dmesg, and see if you have any lines like this:
> [11613050.504117] rsync_bpc[7279]: segfault at 7f9ee5c7e428 ip
> 004473af sp 7ffc3d7bdf80 error 4 in rsync_bpc[40+75000]
>
> There seems to be some bug in rsync_bpc, I was wor
On 22/01/16 04:43, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
> wrote:
>> 2016-01-21 16:30 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
>>> V4 does it backwards from v3. The last backup is always filled and
>>> the older ones are changed to reverse deltas. It must move/copy
>>> t
On 22/01/16 05:45, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> 2016-01-21 18:43 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
>> I see some earlier mail list messages saying that is normal:
>> http://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/message/34478542/
>> I guess that's when it removes files that are not in any current
>> backup.
2016-01-21 18:43 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> I see some earlier mail list messages saying that is normal:
> http://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/message/34478542/
> I guess that's when it removes files that are not in any current
> backup. Apparently it only takes a long time when you have a v
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
wrote:
> 2016-01-21 16:30 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
>> V4 does it backwards from v3. The last backup is always filled and
>> the older ones are changed to reverse deltas. It must move/copy
>> things around to arrange that. And the full an
2016-01-21 16:30 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> V4 does it backwards from v3. The last backup is always filled and
> the older ones are changed to reverse deltas. It must move/copy
> things around to arrange that. And the full and incremental runs
> aren't tied to keeping filled/unfilled backups a
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
wrote:
>
> This is what I see from control panel during copying #5 => #4 (right now)
>
> If I understood properly, only last backup should be filled. This
> seems ok in my environment,
> as all except #5 are not filled (filled=0). #5 is filled
2016-01-21 12:41 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev :
> Try changing the sharename, see if it makes a difference. You could try
> "complete" or similar. Worst case, it makes no difference, but best
> case, it will solve your problem, and provide a big clue about a bug.
Actually i have some backups running.
On 21/01/2016 22:22, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> 2016-01-21 12:16 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev
> :
>> OK, I'd suggest to try changing this to something else. Usually I would
>> backup / which obviously means the whole server (ie, root folder and
>> everything under it). Though I also tend to spec
2016-01-21 12:16 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev :
> OK, I'd suggest to try changing this to something else. Usually I would
> backup / which obviously means the whole server (ie, root folder and
> everything under it). Though I also tend to specify to only backup the
> single filesystem to avoid backups
On 21/01/2016 21:58, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> 2016-01-21 11:44 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev
> :
>> Silly question but have you named the host full or the share full?
>> A lot of your logs that you posted seemed to have full as one of those
>> names. It could be confusing bpc and it's unlikely th
2016-01-21 11:44 GMT+01:00 Adam Goryachev :
> Silly question but have you named the host full or the share full?
> A lot of your logs that you posted seemed to have full as one of those
> names. It could be confusing bpc and it's unlikely that anyone has
> tested that scenario.
Share is named "fu
On 21 January 2016 8:42:23 pm AEDT, Gandalf Corvotempesta
wrote:
>2016-01-21 10:23 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
>:
>> This is what I see from control panel during copying #5 => #4 (right
>now)
>
>Copy finished now is running a backup (seems to be an incremental)
>In status column I see: "backu
2016-01-21 10:23 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
:
> This is what I see from control panel during copying #5 => #4 (right now)
Copy finished now is running a backup (seems to be an incremental)
In status column I see: "backup full" and in Type column: "incr"
What does "backup full" means if type
2016-01-20 9:23 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
:
> Now, another full is running for srv2.
This is what I see from control panel during copying #5 => #4 (right now)
If I understood properly, only last backup should be filled. This
seems ok in my environment,
as all except #5 are not filled (fill
19 matches
Mail list logo
