2016-01-26 22:58 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
:
> So, is normal that BPC is totally removing the older backup after a
> successful one ?
> Let's see what happens this night.
Anyway, this is totally wrong as i'm unable to restore files from an
older backup.
For example, I need 30 backups and at
2016-01-26 21:13 GMT+01:00 Stephen :
> In the steady state, each time a full backup completes successfully the
> oldest one is removed. If this number is decreased, the extra old backups
> will be removed.
So, is normal that BPC is totally removing the older backup after a
successful one ?
Le
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
> 2016-01-26 16:46 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
> :
>> As expected, srv3 is now in "delete #0" phase.
>
> I think that BPC is trying to remove "common" files between the last
> executed backup and the previous one
> because filled is only the la
2016-01-26 16:46 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
:
> As expected, srv3 is now in "delete #0" phase.
I think that BPC is trying to remove "common" files between the last
executed backup and the previous one
because filled is only the last.
So, in case of #1, it tries to remove common files from #0
2016-01-26 16:46 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
:
> As expected, srv3 is now in "delete #0" phase.
This is the log for today, as you can see, BPC is removing filled
backups, thus removing also first full.
For srv2, is actually in "merge #2 -> 1" phase, dont't know if this is
normal, but removing
2016-01-26 4:27 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> It might be worth looking through the web interface at the values for
> all the settings. Sometimes you can have a syntax error in the text
> file that is just interpreted by perl as something unexpected -
> something like using double quotes instead of s
2016-01-25 18:22 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
:
> Let's see if tonight backup #0 would be removed as usual
As expected, srv3 is now in "delete #0" phase.
--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Pe
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:10 AM, David Rotger wrote:
> It's strange, because l've an exact server with the same distro and with
> these server works. Nevertheless with the aliases work. I d'ont understand
> the syntax that you explain. With version 2 of samba I can mount the share,
> but with the
It's strange, because l've an exact server with the same distro and with
these server works. Nevertheless with the aliases work. I d'ont understand
the syntax that you explain. With version 2 of samba I can mount the share,
but with the 3 I can't.
El 26/1/2016 16:05, "Les Mikesell" escribió:
> On
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:07 AM, David Rotger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've a bind9 server running and working. When I try to backup a smb
> share from windows with host IP, the work fine. But if I put the dns
> name of the machine, backkuppc get this error:
>
> 2016-01-26 09:00:08 full backup started for
If I try to mount into console:
mount -t cifs //pc.local.net/e /mnt/smb -o username=user
I get this error:
mount error(5): Input/output error
Refer to the mount.cifs(8) manual page (e.g. man mount.cifs)
but if I forcé smb vers 2.0 work
mount -t cifs -o username=backuppc,vers=2.0 //pc.local.net
Hi,
I've a bind9 server running and working. When I try to backup a smb
share from windows with host IP, the work fine. But if I put the dns
name of the machine, backkuppc get this error:
2016-01-26 09:00:08 full backup started for share copia
2016-01-26 09:00:10 Got fatal error during xfer (No f
12 matches
Mail list logo
