Re: gradually adding resourses to back up
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 05:08:19PM -0700, Eric Wadsworth wrote: I'm starting small, only backing up a few machines. I've got to do a demo for my boss, then I'll be adding a bunch more machines. Can I just haphazardly add lines to my disklist file, or should I do something special? Be prepared not to be able to backup all of your newly added disks in a single run. If you add more disks than a single tape can hold (minus the disks you are already backing up), you'll have to wait for several runs to get them sorted out. Just wait some days and Amanda will deal with it nicely.
Re: Exclusions not working
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:09:55PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: Hi, In my exclude rules for the /var filesystem backup, I have some lines like this: ./spool/postfix/private/* ./lib/lists-archives/archives/* Which, according to the docs, are the right way to do this (there are sockets in those directories which cause gtar warnings.) However, they are ignored! Also, lines like: Did you install the exclude list as defined in the appropriate dumptype on the client? Is the file read by Amanda/tar? (Check the access time with "ls -lu".)
Re: I had enough holding disk but part of the dump failed -
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:23:10PM -0500, John R. Jackson wrote: I think that's what's happening, a dump with est_kps larger than the bandwidth will never be scheduled to dump on holding disk. I agree it looks like that could happen in principle (in fact, I wonder if other such "don't do this now" states should be examined), but in this particular case the estimated bandwidth for the two disks not processed was well below the available. The schedule give: admin1.cor sda9 lv 2 t 5 s52939 p 13 52939/5 = 10587 that's above 1, and that's why sda9 didn't get dumped. As Alexandre said, sda10 didn't get dumped because the disk was big and the chunksize set to -1. Jean-Louis -- Jean-Louis Martineau email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Departement IRO, Universite de Montreal C.P. 6128, Succ. CENTRE-VILLETel: (514) 343-6111 ext. 3529 Montreal, Canada, H3C 3J7Fax: (514) 343-5834
Re: I had enough holding disk but part of the dump failed -
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 09:35:54AM -0500, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote: On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 11:23:10PM -0500, John R. Jackson wrote: I think that's what's happening, a dump with est_kps larger than the bandwidth will never be scheduled to dump on holding disk. I agree it looks like that could happen in principle (in fact, I wonder if other such "don't do this now" states should be examined), but in this particular case the estimated bandwidth for the two disks not processed was well below the available. The schedule give: admin1.cor sda9 lv 2 t 5 s52939 p 13 52939/5 = 10587 that's above 1, and that's why sda9 didn't get dumped. In free_kps() we have: /* XXX - kludge - if we are currently using nothing ** on this interface then lie and say he can ** have as much as he likes. */ if (ip-curusage == 0) res = 1; else res = ip-maxusage - ip-curusage; Even if maxusage 1, it will never return more than 1 if curusage==0. Should we fix it and increased it to 10? Or my previous patch is better and we should remove this kludge? Jean-Louis -- Jean-Louis Martineau email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Departement IRO, Universite de Montreal C.P. 6128, Succ. CENTRE-VILLETel: (514) 343-6111 ext. 3529 Montreal, Canada, H3C 3J7Fax: (514) 343-5834
Re: strange dumps ?
On Nov 4, 2000, Aharon Schkolnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm still using 2.4.1 (does anyone know if there are 2.4.2 rpms
available yet ?).
You *might* be able to find them at rawhide.redhat.com
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist*Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
Re: Exclusions not working (FIX)
Alexandre Oliva requested that I post this message to amanda-users.
This is regarding the tar problem that I wrote here about.
Here is the message I got from the GNU tar folks, along with a patch.
Note that he couldn't duplicate it on Solaris (which doesn't use GNU
libc) but that it occured for me on two glibc platforms.
-- John
- Forwarded message from Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
X-Addr-Extension: saved
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-From: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: 04 Nov 2000 11:10:44 -0500
X-Addr-Extension:
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:39:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Exclusions not working
Resent-Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can't reproduce the problem on Solaris with GNU tar 1.13.18 using
the following scenario. Is this scenario the right one?
$ mkdir -p spool/postfix/private
$ touch spool/postfix/private/file
$ echo './spool/postfix/private/*' x
$ gtar -cf /tmp/tar --exclude-from=x .
$ gtar -tvf /tmp/tar
drwxrwxr-x eggert/eggert 0 2000-11-03 09:29:33 ./
drwxrwxr-x eggert/eggert 0 2000-11-03 09:27:41 ./spool/
drwxrwxr-x eggert/eggert 0 2000-11-03 09:27:41 ./spool/postfix/
drwxrwxr-x eggert/eggert 0 2000-11-03 09:27:49 ./spool/postfix/private/
-rw-rw-r-- eggert/eggert26 2000-11-03 09:28:01 ./x
Possibly that is a bug in your GNU C library. Please try using GNU
tar 1.13.18 ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/tar/ with the following patch;
it works around the glibc bug. If that doesn't work, please send a
standalone test case.
2000-11-02 Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* lib/fnmatch.c: Do not comment out all the code if we are
using the GNU C library, because in some cases we are
replacing buggy code in the GNU C library itself.
2000-10-30 Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* lib/fnmatch.c (FOLD): Do not assume that characters are unsigned.
===
RCS file: lib/fnmatch.c,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -pu -r1.2 -r1.4
--- lib/fnmatch.c 2000/10/24 06:18:37 1.2
+++ lib/fnmatch.c 2000/11/03 00:23:21 1.4
@@ -27,22 +27,10 @@
#include fnmatch.h
#include ctype.h
-
-/* Comment out all this code if we are using the GNU C Library, and are not
- actually compiling the library itself. This code is part of the GNU C
- Library, but also included in many other GNU distributions. Compiling
- and linking in this code is a waste when using the GNU C library
- (especially if it is a shared library). Rather than having every GNU
- program understand `configure --with-gnu-libc' and omit the object files,
- it is simpler to just do this in the source for each such file. */
-
-#if defined _LIBC || !defined __GNU_LIBRARY__
-
-
# if defined STDC_HEADERS || !defined isascii
# define IN_CTYPE_DOMAIN(c) 1
# else
-# define IN_CTYPE_DOMAIN(c) isascii(c)
+# define IN_CTYPE_DOMAIN(c) isascii (c)
# endif
# define ISUPPER(c) (IN_CTYPE_DOMAIN (c) isupper (c))
@@ -61,7 +49,9 @@ fnmatch (const char *pattern, const char
register char c;
A
/* Note that this evaluates C many times. */
-# define FOLD(c) ((flags FNM_CASEFOLD) ISUPPER (c) ? tolower (c) : (c))
+# define FOLD(c) ((flags FNM_CASEFOLD) ISUPPER ((unsigned char) (c)) \
+ ? tolower ((unsigned char) (c)) \
+ : (c))
while ((c = *p++) != '\0')
{
@@ -238,5 +228,3 @@ fnmatch (const char *pattern, const char
# undef FOLD
}
-
-#endif /* _LIBC or not __GNU_LIBRARY__. */
- End forwarded message -
--
A
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com
#include std_disclaimer.h [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exclusions not working
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Nov 4, 2000, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apparently, there is a bug in glibc that is triggered by the pattern patching code in tar. They gave me a tar patch that works around it, and this solved my problem! You may want to post the patch here, for the record :-) OK, I've forwarded along the message from the GNU tar people... -- John -- John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.www.progenylinux.com #include std_disclaimer.h [EMAIL PROTECTED]
version 2.4.2 where to get?
Where can I get 2.4.2? How stable is it? If it's in CVS can someone tell me how to check it out? Thanks, Edwin
