On 2017-11-08 08:03, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote:
On 07/11/17 02:58 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2017-11-07 10:22, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote:
>> Austin,
>>
>> It's hard to say something with only the error message.
>>
>> Can you post the amdump.<datestamp> and log.<datestamp>.0 for the 2
>> backup set that fail.
>>
> I've attached the files (I would put them inline, but one of the sets
> has over 100 DLE's, so the amdump file is huge, and the others are
> still over 100k each, and I figured nobody want's to try and wad
> through those in-line).
>
> The set1 and set2 files are for the two backup sets that show the
> header mismatch error, and the set3 files are for the one that claims
> failures in the dump summary.
I looked at set3, the error in the 'DUMP SUMMARY' are related to the
error in the 'FAILURE DUMP SUMMARY'
client2 /boot lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
client3 /boot lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
client7 /boot lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
client8 /boot lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
client0 /boot lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
client9 /boot lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
client9 /srv lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
client9 /var lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
server0 /boot lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
client10 /boot lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
client11 /boot lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
client12 /boot lev 0 FLUSH [File 0 not found]
They are VAULT attemp, not FLUSH, looking only at the first entry, it
try to vault 'client2 /boot 0 20171024084159' which it expect to find on
tape Server-01. It is an older dump.
Do Server-01 is still there? Did it still contains the dump?
Hmm, looks like that's a leftover from changing our labeling format
shortly after switching to this new configuration. I thought I purged
all the stuff with the old label scheme, but I guess not.
It somewhat surprises me that this doesn't give any kind of error
indication in the e-mail report beyond the 'FAILED' line in the dump
summary.
