On 05/29/2018 01:29 PM, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Okay, so your question is really: why are some (the majority) of the removed 
> machines not detected as "orphaned" by dbcheck?
Yes :)
Why are there differences between bconsole and the database and what to
do about it
> I'll have to pass that one on as I don't know about the inner workings of 
> dbcheck's orphaned clients check.
> Perhaps it is not considering clients as orphaned as long as the catalog 
> still lists backup jobs from them.
I can find Jobs from those systems in bconsole via "list volume pool".
*list volume pool=FOO-POOL

+---------+---------------------+-----------+---------+---------------+----------+--------------+---------+------+-----------+-------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| MediaId | VolumeName          | VolStatus | Enabled | VolBytes      |
VolFiles | VolRetention | Recycle | Slot | InChanger |
MediaType               | LastWritten         | ExpiresIn |
+---------+---------------------+-----------+---------+---------------+----------+--------------+---------+------+-----------+-------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
|   7,564 | foo-7564 | Used      |       1 |    28,399,356 |        0
|    2,592,000 |       1 |    0 |         0 | FOO-MEDIA | 2017-12-06
00:14:07 |         0 |
|   7,569 | foo-7569 | Used      |       1 |    26,770,210 |        0
|    2,592,000 |       1 |    0 |         0 | FOO-MEDIA | 2017-12-07
00:19:27 |         0 |

I guess I could purge every Job of each Client :-/
But it looks like thats ~30 Jobs per System
> On Tue, May 29, 2018, at 10:02, Steffen Schwebel wrote:
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>> But Im not sure what to tell you.
>>
>> The Mysql Table bacula.Client has ~100 more entires than the output from
>> bconsole.
>> These are mostly machines the got removed from the bacula COnfiguration
>> but linger on in the database.
>>
>> I assume thats why the helper script dbcheck exists in the first place.
>> But even that will only give me a few out of the hundred I found.
>>
>>
>> On 05/28/2018 09:15 PM, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>>> You may want to have a look at the raw result of the two commands
>>>
>>> mysql bacula -e "select * from Client" -ss
>>> echo "status client" | bconsole
>>>
>>> After saving both to files and massaging them a bit with sed or a
>>> similar tool, you should be able to feed them to diff and find out where
>>> the difference comes from.
>>>
>>> Am 28.05.2018 um 16:59 schrieb Steffen Schwebel:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Ive been working with Bacula and see a discrepany I cant explain:
>>>>
>>>> mysql bacula -e "select * from Client" -ss | wc -l
>>>> 336
>>>>
>>>> echo "status client" | bconsole | wc -l
>>>> 241
>>>>
>>>> I tried to use the dbcheck to correct this mismatch.
>>>> But that is showing me 16 orhpaned clients. It should close to a hundred.
>>>>
>>>> What am I missing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Steffen Schwebel
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bacula-users mailing list
>>> Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bacula-users mailing list
>> Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Reply via email to