Re: A Very Bad umount

2018-09-25 Thread Rick Thomas
On Sep 11, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Martin McCormick wrote: > /bin/rm: cannot remove > '/var/cache/rsnapshot/halfday.1/wb5agz/home/usr/lib/i386 > -linux-gnu': Transport endpoint is not connected In your rsnapshot.conf file, is “use_lazy_deletes” set to 1? If so, the final delete part of

Re: A Very Bad umount

2018-09-25 Thread Martin McCormick
=?UTF-8?Q?=c3=89tienne_Mollier?= writes: > > Good Day, > > Not sure if that is the kind of answer you would wish to > expect, but have you considered doing umounts sequentially? > (optionally after synchronizing file systems) > > sync > umount /var/cache/rsnapshot >

Re: A Very Bad umount

2018-09-12 Thread Martin McCormick
=?UTF-8?Q?=c3=89tienne_Mollier?= writes: > Good Day Gene, > > Gene Heskett 2018-09-12T03:14 +0200 : > > Should a badly placed “rm” command occur on the system, the > system and both of its backup disks would be wiped clean. I > don't believe the risk mentioned here over was related to disk >

Re: A Very Bad umount

2018-09-12 Thread Gene Heskett
On Wednesday 12 September 2018 13:12:43 Étienne Mollier wrote: > Good Day Gene, > > Gene Heskett 2018-09-12T03:14 +0200 : > > On Tuesday 11 September 2018 15:28:30 Martin McCormick wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > >Any constructive ideas are appreciated. If I left > > > the drives mounted

Re: A Very Bad umount

2018-09-12 Thread Étienne Mollier
Good Day Gene, Gene Heskett 2018-09-12T03:14 +0200 : > On Tuesday 11 September 2018 15:28:30 Martin McCormick wrote: > > [...] > > >Any constructive ideas are appreciated. If I left > > the drives mounted all the time, there would be no spew but > > since these are backup drives, having

Re: A Very Bad umount

2018-09-11 Thread Gene Heskett
On Tuesday 11 September 2018 15:28:30 Martin McCormick wrote: [...] >    Any constructive ideas are appreciated.  If I left the > drives mounted all the time, there would be no spew but since > these are backup drives, having them mounted all the time is > quite risky. > > Martin McCormick

Re: A Very Bad umount

2018-09-11 Thread Martin McCormick
=?UTF-8?Q?=c3=89tienne_Mollier?= writes: > > Good Day, > > Not sure if that is the kind of answer you would wish to > expect, but have you considered doing umounts sequentially? > (optionally after synchronizing file systems) > > sync > umount /var/cache/rsnapshot >

Re: A Very Bad umount

2018-09-11 Thread Étienne Mollier
On 9/11/18 9:28 PM, Martin McCormick wrote: > #Combine 2 256-GB drives in to 1 512 GB drive. > > mount /rsnapshot1 > mount /rsnapshot2 > mhddfs /rsnapshot1,/rsnapshot2 /var/cache/rsnapshot -o mlimit=100M > -8<8< > I have actually tried > > umount

A Very Bad umount

2018-09-11 Thread Martin McCormick
This has all the earmarks of a race condition because it is totally intermittent. It succeeds maybe 80% of the time. I am using rsync to backup a Linux system to a pair of thumb drives which both appear to be healthy. The mounting process goes as follows: #Combine 2 256-GB drives in to