On Thursday 09 March 2006 12:14, Iulian Topliceanu wrote: >> On 2006-03-09 17:19, Iulian Topliceanu wrote: >>> Paul Bijnens wrote: >>>> On 2006-03-09 13:25, Iulian Topliceanu wrote: >>>>> The dump definition looks like this: >>>>> >>>>> dumpcycle 10 day # the number of days in the normal dump >>>>> cycle runspercycle 8 day # the number of amdump runs in >>>>> dumpcycle days tapecycle 12 tapes # the number of tapes in >>>>> rotation >>>> >>>> seems fine. >>> >>> Amanda reported that the dumps where successfully to tape vtape-7, >>> but taking a simple look to what that vtape-7 contained (using ls), >>> has proved >>> the opposite, there was no sign of /var/spool/mail/p (and the other >>> DLE's >>> which had the same problem) on vtape-7. >>> >>> vtape-7 contained /data/data0/share1 (directory, which I said >>> above, was >>> reported not to be backuped successfully) >>> >>> I should mention that these this didn't occure on the same run. My >>> guess is that Amanda backuped successfully /var/spool/mail/p (and >>> the other DLE's) on the 24.02 and wrote them to vtape-7, but on the >>> 2.03 when this error occured: >>> >>> baal /data/data0/share1 lev 0 FAILED [dump larger than tape, >>> 31665455 KB, >>> incremental dump also larger than tape] >>> >>> The dumps where written again on vtape-7, so that's the reason why >>> /data/data0/share1 appears to pe on vtape-7 instead of >>> /var/spool/mail/p (and the other DLE's) >> >> [...] >> >>> I've noticed that 12 vtapes where used in less than 10 days (the >>> dumpcycle >>> = 10 days) but is that an excuse for missing data? >> >> Again on vtape-7 ??? How is that possible? >> Do you have runtapes > 1 ? >> Or do you run amdump multiple times a day? > >Amanda uses sometime more than 1 tape per run. That's why vtape-7 was >again next. So even if I would have defined runtapes 1, Amanda would > have used more. > If you've got runtapes=1, and it still uses more, I'd say that installation is hosed, possbly even confused as to where its .conf file is. Have you perchance done a reinstall somewhere along the line?
>> Any idea why amadmin still believes that vtape-7 contains the data >> from feb 24, and not data from mar 2 ? > >This is what I'm trying to find out. and I have no logical explanation > yet. > >>>Level 1 dump didn't contain *all* of the expected files. Some of the >>> mails received during the level 0 dump and level 1 dump, where not >>> present. >>> >>>I should add that the volume /var/spool/mail (which is split in >>>/var/spool/mail/[a-z]) is 130 GB big and has ~7 million inodes. > >What about the missing files? Does anyone have a clue about how > something like this is possible? Is it because of the huge number of > inodes on the fs? > >Iulian Topliceanu -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
