On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 12:10 PM G.W. Haywood <bac...@jubileegroup.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi there, > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2024, Daniel Berteaud wrote: > > ----- Le 21 Ao? 24, ? 2:02, backu...@kosowsky.org a ?crit : > > > >> First of all, the corruption seems almost definitely to be a disk > >> issue and not a backuppc issue. > > > > I'm just configuring a new BackupPC v4.4 (on Debian, using packages > > from the repo), ... > > Does ZFS work on Linux now? That's a genuine question, not some way > of trying to goad ZFS lovers. I ask it because, last time I looked, > there were people here of the opinion that not only did it not work on > Linux but that it probably never would. Admittedly it was a while ago: > ZFS on Linux is quite mature and is included with Ubuntu Server and Desktop releases. It works as intended in my experience. See https://zfsonlinux.org/ > 8<---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:38:52 -0600 > From: dan <danden...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] How to use backuppc with TWO HDD > To: ... <backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> > ... > ZFS on linux = bad. ZFS is a solaris thing and will be for some time. > someday *BSD will have stable ZFS but I doubt linux ever will. btrfs will > likely be in wide use which will serve many of the same purposes as ZFS. > ... > 8<---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ... encounter this kind of errors systematically. It's not a > > corruption due to some hardware fault, but clearly a bug in > > BackupPC. > > As I've said before, but I'll repeat, I don't have any BackupPC axe to > grind but Mr. Kosowsky and I both think that what you're seeing looks > like filesystem corruption. You seem to be of the opinion that this > is not the explanation, and you might be right, but to convince me (at > least) unless I've missed something in your posts which makes the case > conclusively and to which you can point, then I think it must be up to > you to produce that evidence. > > > ... This pool is used for other stuff (1 relatively busy mariadb > > server in a VM, one Proxmox Backup Server storage pool), and > > everything is working correctly. Only BackupPC is having issues. > > The "everything is working correctly" part troubles me. I don't see > that you have evidence for that. The way I approach the logic of > troubleshooting, I'd say you haven't had problems with everything else > *yet*. And you might never have trouble with anything else, but that > is not the presence of evidence. It is the absence of evidence. > > > Looks like I'm not the only one affected, see > > https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/issues/494 > > Hmmm. That's on Linux as well - or more strictly, it was in April. > > > I tried 3 times to wipe and start from empty pool, but this comes > > back everytime. So there's a bug in BackupPC. It might only be > > triggered on ZFS (or maybe it's related to the speed on the > > underlying storage, as this one is really the fastest I ever > > used). But there's something. For the first time in more than 18 > > years of using BackupPC, > > I've been running BackupPC for nearly as long as you have, and I've > never seen such errors. But I run ext4. It would take an awful lot > of persuasion and years of testing for me to switch to anything else. > Last time I tried one of the latest and greatest new filesystems, the > whole thing went belly up in days. I vowed never to do that again. > > AFAICT so far, the best we can say is that the combination of BackuPC > and ZFS on Linux might be problematic. I can't say I'm surprised, but > I can say that we really don't yet know where your problem lies. So > far, I only know of two people running BackupPC on ZFS on Linux. [*] > Both have posted to Github issue 494. Unless there's some lurker here > who's keeping very quiet, in my view as I said above only you and that > other person are in a position in which they will be able to collect > evidence to identify BackupPC as the culprit. Evidence, not anecdote. > I count at least four now :-) My BackupsPC/ZFS/Ubuntu Server combo has been working as expected for almost 6 years. Also I'd say that in a previous post you described a whole lot of what > appeared to me to be completely unnecessary thrashing of storage media > in (something like) the interests of reliability. My feeling at that > time was that you were making a rod for your own back and I still feel > that way. I kept quiet at the time on grounds of tranquility on this > list, but I believe that you have made things much more complex than > necessary and I'd like to suggest a test... > > > I think I cannot trust my backups anymore. ... very worrying. > > There we can agree. My sugested test is that you fire up a system > using ext4, don't do anything fancy with it, run it in parallel with > your ZFS version, and then sit back and see what happens. There may > be alternatives, such as ditching Linux and trying Solaris. I could > only take a back seat if you did something like that. > > In your position, not that I'd ever let myself get into that position, > I would try ext4 because it's easy and it's never given any trouble. > > [*] > There was a mention in April, see "Problems cropping up with backups" > but I don't know if we ever knew if the TrueNAS host is running Linux. > > -- > > 73, > Ged. > > > _______________________________________________ > BackupPC-users mailing list > BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net > List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users > Wiki: https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki > Project: https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/ >
_______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki Project: https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/
