Hi,
Les Mikesell wrote on 2011-09-03 07:55:29 -0500 [Re: [BackupPC-users] first
"full" never completes]:
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 2:18 AM, <hans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keep in mind that if you get a virtual machine working, [...]
and before keeping that in mind, keep in mind to get your system working
before raising other issues.
> > Since I want to use the BackupPC 3.1 package (eventual production system
> > will be on CentOS5), while I'm at it I'll use the Ubuntu version it's
> > designed for, Lucid 10.04, rather than the latest Natty 11.04.
>
> If you are going to use centos, you might as well use centos in
> testing,
I need to agree with that. You might be hunting down a packaging issue you
will never have on the system you are intending to use. On the other hand, you
may be missing other packaging issues that you *will* have (not meaning to say
there are any bugs in the rpm, just that things can go wrong). So what's the
point of testing the installation process if you are going to use a completely
different one?
> I think the EPEL package was recently updated to 3.2
Which may or may not be an advantage. I'm still running BackupPC 2.1.2, and it
does exactly what it is supposed to do. The 3.2 package may be better or worse
than the 3.1 package. No idea. But, again, you should test what you intend to
do later, not something "possibly similar". If you plan on using 3.2, then
test with that.
> and I would be able to give better advice with rpm commands.
Just as much as I would be able to give better advice with dpkg/apt commands :).
I'll get back to that if there is any point.
Regards,
Holger
P.S.: On the "bind-mount issue", first of all I agree with the points that
have been made on eliminating complexity as long as things are not
working for you. Once you know how to *reproducibly* get things running
(which *should be* as trivial as installing the package and setting up
the necessary configuration, but obviously something is going wrong
somewhere), you can move on to the issue of data pool storage. I
maintain that bind mounts are absolutely fine to use. They are not the
*source* of your problem, though in the process of using them you might
have messed something up. They *certainly* will *never* replace soft
links, because they don't address the same issue (much like scissors
haven't replaced knives).
If you ask for my guess, either the package is incorrectly setting
things up, or you have somehow messed up your system to a point that
the package installation runs incorrectly, or you have incorrectly
described what is happening. I can understand that you may be leaving
things out that seem unimportant to you. Let's just hope you're right :).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Offer -- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE!
Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better
price-free! And you'll get a free "Love Thy Logs" t-shirt when you
download Logger. Secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsisghtdev2dev
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
