On Fri Mar 16 15:56:20 2001 John R. Jackson wrote...
>
>>Heres a transcript of the seession
>>...
>>amrecover> ls
>>[?1h=[24;1H[K2001-03-15 .
>>2001-03-15 X11R6/
>>...
>>2001-03-15 porWarning: `.' missing from directory ./
>>2001-03-15 portWarning: `.' missing from directory ./
>>...
>>[24;1H[K[?1l>amrecover> cd home
>>/usr/home
>>amrecover> ls
>>[?1h=[24;1H[K2001-03-15 .
>>[24;1H[K[?1l>amrecover> brown# ^Dexit
>
>Are you saying you got all this garbage instead of a normal listing
>of files? Sometimes it's hard to tell with E-mail whether what shows
>up is what was intended.
Mmm, no. This was from a typescript of a session, and is probably the result of
a fairly fancy ksh prompt I have. We can ignore this garvage.
>
>>Does anyone see any reason that I should not be getting backups?
>
>Why do you think you're not getting backups? Looks to me like backups
>worked fine but the index file is corrupt, which in turn makes amrecover's
>life miserable.
OK, that makes more sense, since the mail report thinks it got them.
>
>First, I'd look through /tmp/amanda/amindexd*debug and see how it looks.
>If it shows the same corruption, then the problem is probably in the
>index files themselves, so I'd look at them next. If not, I'd look
>at /tmp/amnada/amrecover*debug and see what it thinks it got back from
>amindexd.
Thanks, I will look over these Monday (the system in question is at work)>
>
>In the meantime, if you really need the files restored soon, I'd "do it
>by hand" with amrestore.
No, the ~/.netscape directory is low priority. I just had a wake up call from
not being able to retrieve it.
Thanks for the guidance.
--
Stan Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] 843-745-3154
Charleston SC.
--
Windows 98: n.
useless extension to a minor patch release for 32-bit extensions and
a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system
originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit
company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.
-
(c) 2000 Stan Brown. Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is prohibited.
