On 26 January 2012 14:59, Les Mikesell <lesmikes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Michael Stepner
> <michaelstep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I haven't used the ftp module so I can't help much, but is that LIST
> >> command actually sending any filenames?
> >
> >
> > I don't know how to check for certain, but the with gFTP I certainly get
> a
> > file listing, and the log shows:
> >
> >>> (000090)26/01/2012 0:49:34 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> LIST -aL
> >>> (000090)26/01/2012 0:49:34 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> 150
> Connection
> >>> accepted
> >>> (000090)26/01/2012 0:49:34 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> 226 Transfer
> OK
>
> Can you try the command line ftp program? 'ls' should correspond to
> LIST, and 'ls -a' should show hidden files. Alternatively, you could
> use wireshark to observe the network activity on either the linux or
> windows side.
>
I used the command line ftp program on my desktop, which the man page
indicates is supplied by gFTP (see my next statements for more details).
It behaves exactly as the GTK GUI version does: when I log in, it
automatically sends SYST and the server responds "215 UNIX emulated by
FileZilla". And when I send ls or ls -a, the server responds with LIST -aL.
When I tried to run the command line ftp program on my server, I realized I
didn't have one.
I considered that that may be the problem, but I doubted it, since BackupPC
must be using its own mechanism for making FTP connections, without relying
on an external program. The server is seeing a connection, after all,
and I note that in its Debian/Ubuntu packages, there is no ftp-related
dependency or suggested/recommended package. But I decided to try
installing gFTP's console client on the server anyway. I did, it behaves
the same way as it does on my desktop when connecting to the FTP server,
and installing it did not solve my issues with BackupPC.
>
> > BackupPC might not be getting a file listing, and it shows:
> >
> >>> (000089)26/01/2012 0:45:13 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> LIST
> >>> (000089)26/01/2012 0:45:13 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> 150
> Connection
> >>> accepted
> >>> (000089)26/01/2012 0:45:13 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> 226 Transfer
> OK
> >
> > Although, as I said in a previous post, I speculate that that could be
> due
> > to the lack of BackupPC sending a "SYST" command, which gFTP did:
> >>> (000090)26/01/2012 0:49:33 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> SYST
> >>> (000090)26/01/2012 0:49:33 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> 215 UNIX
> >>> emulated by FileZilla
>
> SYST is just a request for the OS version name - it should not change
> subsequent behavior.
>
> man ftp and man ftpd on the linux system should give the details of
> commands and expected responses.
>
You're right, I looked it up, and SYST shouldn't be changing subsequent
behaviour. This difference in the logs is immaterial.
>> Since you are installing a 3rd party service on the client for the
> >> transfer anyway, why not use cwrRsync which is known to work and
> >> probably more efficient?
> >
> >
> > A fair point. I already have an FTP server running on the clients for
> > services apart from backups, so the decision is whether or not to
> install a
> > second 3rd party service. I'm probably willing to do that, although I'd
> > prefer to use the existing FTP server.
>
> You'll probably get more correct incremental backups with rsync
> (deletions and changes with old timestamps tracked) and if you have
> low bandwidth connections, fulls will be much more efficient.
>
So, I'm stumped by this bug. It might be client side: gFTP works fine in
fetching a directory listing and files from the server, but BackupPC does
not. It could also be server side: perhaps FileZilla has some non-standard
behaviour (as you said), and perhaps gFTP is able to adapt to it whereas
BackupPC is not.
As you suggest, I'm going to give up and switch to rsync. I don't really
want to spend more time investigating this, and even if I did, I wouldn't
know what to do next. I hope this conversation is useful if someone else
encounters a similar issue in the future. I know that when I googled the
error message I had in my BackupPC logs, I found nothing.
A final note about my switch to rsync, for any future readers:
I once used cwRsync, quite a few years ago, but it seems it's no longer
freeware! You now have to pay for a license, which only receives updates
for one year. So, I'm going to simply set up rsync and SSH in cygwin, for
free. I intend to use these instructions to guide me:
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~cdunne/projs/backuppc_guide.html#Client
Setup (Windows 7/Vista/XP)
>
> > Moreover, that might not be an option for all users. I do think this
> bug is
> > worth sorting out.
>
> I think you'll have to sort out whether it is filezilla doing
> something non-standard or a backuppc bug, though.
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikes...@gmail.com
>
>
Thank you for your help, Les.
Michael
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
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/
