Hi James - I had the same problem back in June on a FreeBSD box -- the problem turned out to be the tcp wrapper file (hosts.allow). I forgot to add the entry for amandad.
Also check here: http://amanda.sourceforge.net/fom-serve/cache/140.html HTH! -doug -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Doug Silver Network Manager Urchin Corporation http://www.urchin.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On 28 May 2002, James Shearer wrote: > A two-fold newbie (Amanda, Solaris) asks: > > I am having some problems making amanda happy as a client on a Solaris 8 > box. In a nutshell, I am seeing the inetd looping error discussed on > the list back in February. Basically, the problem is this: > > 1.) I have a Solaris 8 box configured as the tape server with no > *apparent* problems. > > 2.) I am trying to configure another Solaris 8 box as a client. The > build of 2.4.2p2 goes just fine, as does the modification and SIGHUPing > of inetd.conf. 'netstat -a | grep -i amanda' verifies that the amanda > service is indeed listening as it should be.... > > 3.) When I run 'su amanda -c "/usr/local/sbin/amcheck daily", everything > is a-ok with my configuration except that the client (murrow) host check > fails like this: > > WARNING: murrow: selfcheck request timed out. Host down? > > 4.) So, I checked /var/adm/messges on murrow to find the following > messages (trimmed): > > [ID 858011 daemon.warning] /usr/local/libexec/amandad: Killed > last message repeated 38 times > amanda/udp server failing (looping), service terminated > > 5.) So it seems that amcheck is pushing more that 40 requests per minute > (the default limit for Solaris inetd) at the amanda service on the > client. I can accomodate this by making use of the '-r' switch to > inetd. But, my questions are: > > Do I want to do this? Why is amcheck pushing so many requests at the > client service? How many requests per minute should I allow for? And > (total newbie-ness, sorry) how can I restart inetd with the added '-r' > switch properly without *rebooting* the box? Can it just be started by > hand "safely?" > > Thanks for any guidance! > > Jim > > > > > >
