I think is not a problem of firewall because, if i put only one filesystem in disklist it work.
ND On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 18:21 +0100, Christoph Scheeder wrote: > Hi, > > Completly shure? > many modern linux distros (AFAIK at least suse and redhat) come up > with default firewall-installations blocking many things if you do > not explicitly disable these firewalls. > So there might be a firewall on the linux-box even if you didn't > configure it. > > Christoph > > Nuno Dias schrieb: > > No, the two machines are in the same network, no firewall. > > > > ND > > > > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 17:55 +0100, Christoph Scheeder wrote: > > > >>Nuno Dias schrieb: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I have a Digital Unix machine that give me some strange results when i > >>>try to use amanda. > >>> If i configure disklist with 2 or more disks of the Digital Unix > >>>machine, "the amanda report" tell me this: > >>> > >>>xxxxxxx /xxxx lev 0 FAILED [Estimate timeout from xxxxxx] > >>>xxxxxxx /usr lev 0 FAILED [Estimate timeout from xxxxxx] > >>>xxxxxxx / lev 0 FAILED [Estimate timeout from xxxxxx] > >>> > >>> The amandad.20041202142753000.debug file in Digital Machine have this > >>>error: > >>> > >>>amandad: time 200.266: dgram_recv: timeout after 10 seconds > >>>amandad: time 200.266: waiting for ack: timeout, retrying > >>>amandad: time 210.267: dgram_recv: timeout after 10 seconds > >>>amandad: time 210.267: waiting for ack: timeout, retrying > >>>amandad: time 220.267: dgram_recv: timeout after 10 seconds > >>>amandad: time 220.267: waiting for ack: timeout, retrying > >>>amandad: time 230.267: dgram_recv: timeout after 10 seconds > >>>amandad: time 230.267: waiting for ack: timeout, retrying > >>>amandad: time 240.267: dgram_recv: timeout after 10 seconds > >>>amandad: time 240.267: waiting for ack: timeout, giving up! > >>>amandad: time 240.267: pid 22594 finish time Thu Dec 2 14:31:54 2004 > >>> > >>> The strange thing is, if i configure only one disk in disklist, the > >>>backup run ok, and no problem is report in "amanda report". > >>> I increased the etimeout/ctimeout to a big number ... and did not work. > >>> > >>> I have a Linux machine that is the master and the Digital Unix machine > >>>is the client, the version of amanda is 2.4.4p4 > >>> > >>>Thank's for some help. > >>> > >>>ND > >> > >>Hi, > >>could this be a firewall-timeout on the linux-machine? > >>Christoph -- Nuno Dias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> LIP
