Hi, All.
It's good that you brought this up on the mailing list, I was just about
to ask! I've been having problems with estimation timeouts lately too,
so I'll try some of these tips to fix it.
What confused me initially was why estimation failures are classified as
"FAIL"? It's quite worrying when you wake up in the morning to find
last night's backups have FAILED. Shouldn't the classification be more
similar to something like the STRANGE errors (where files have changed
during backup, for example)?
Cheers,
Alan
On 12/10/2012 06:05 PM, Charles Stroom wrote:
Hi, the forwarded email below was meant to go to the list, but I noticed
later it was only to 1 recepient. Hence the forward.
Regards, Charles
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 22:08:48 +0100
From: Charles Stroom <[email protected]>
To: Jens Berg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: failure "estimate of level x timed out"
So far, so good. Since I have increased etimeout to 14400 AND set
"estimate calcsize" I have had 2 backups without failures. The only
thing I don't know yet which parameter did the trick. I keep my
fingers crossed.
Thanks both of you.
Charles
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:49:28 +0100
Jens Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
I would suggest to increase etimeout to a much bigger value, let's say
14400 or so and see if the estimates finish at all then. If they still
fail, I would take a closer look on the health of the hard discs...
Another option could be to change the estimate method for the dump
type you are using, e.g. if you are using "dumptype user-tar" for the
DLEs, put an "estimate calcsize" in the definition of "dumptype
user-tar". The results of that estimate method will be less accurate
than the ones from the default method but it executes faster.
Best
Jens
--
Alan Orth
[email protected]
http://alaninkenya.org
http://mjanja.co.ke
"I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish
has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone." -Bjarne
Stroustrup, inventor of C++
