Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC 4 very slow

[Gandalf Corvotempesta]

2016-01-18 16:40 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
:
> Exactly. I'm trying to debug why #0 disappeared.
> The same happend with both server. The same happened even some days
> ago (where all of my issue started)

Another backup is running.

now I have these statuses in web interface:
srv1: "backup full"
srv2: "merge #2 -> 1"

srv1 log:

2016-01-16 01:32:24 full backup started for directory full
2016-01-16 14:55:54 full backup 0 complete, 4588991 files, 4588991
bytes, 3 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 3 other)
2016-01-17 05:44:10 incr backup started for directory full
2016-01-17 15:08:04 incr backup 1 complete, 4594227 files, 4594227
bytes, 1 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 1 other)
2016-01-18 06:00:04 full backup started for directory full
2016-01-19 01:32:18 full backup 2 complete, 4597808 files, 4597808
bytes, 11 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 11 other)
2016-01-19 09:10:06 incr backup started for directory full

srv2 log:

2016-01-16 01:32:29 full backup started for directory full
2016-01-16 10:51:25 full backup 0 complete, 2895473 files, 2895473
bytes, 13 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 13 other)
2016-01-17 04:41:21 incr backup started for directory full
2016-01-17 20:20:46 incr backup 1 complete, 2892544 files, 2892544
bytes, 0 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 0 other)
2016-01-18 04:00:03 full backup started for directory full
2016-01-18 21:42:57 full backup 2 complete, 2888912 files, 2888912
bytes, 1 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 1 other)
2016-01-19 05:38:12 incr backup started for directory full
2016-01-19 09:09:51 incr backup 3 complete, 2896236 files, 2896236
bytes, 1 xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 1 other)


Backup #0 is still missing from both clients.

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
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/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC 4 very slow

[Gandalf Corvotempesta]

2016-01-19 9:39 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
:
> srv2: "merge #2 -> 1"

As expected, #2 now is missing. I have #1 (incremental), #3 (incremental)

there are some issues As I'm using standard BPC4
configuration, I think that there are some bugs.

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
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/

Re: [BackupPC-users] Issue with samba client 4.1.6 and newer

[Otto Wincrantz]

Thank you for your efforts David.
I've implemented the patch and it works in my environment, backups complete
ok and I can do sucessfull restores. :-)
But as you say, the system thinks 0 files got backed up:

2016-01-19 09:48:39 full backup started for share Backups
2016-01-19 10:58:59 full backup 75 complete, 0 files, 0 bytes, 0
xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 0 other)



On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:57 PM, David Cramblett  wrote:

> It's looks as though it may be more than RegEx issues. I looked the RegEx
> lines over in Smb.pm and could see some changes were needed, but those
> alone are not the only problem. It also looks like BackupPC expects a line
> of output for each file that is transferred with smbtar. The new version of
> smbclient is only dumping three lines:
>
> Domain=[HOST] OS=[Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard 9600] Server=[Windows
> Server 2012 R2 Standard 6.3]
> tar:322  tarmode is now full, system, hidden, noreset, verbose
> tar:800  Total bytes received: 463398359
>
> If you update your Smb.pm per this patch:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294761 You can get BackupPC
> to read the new style lines properly. However, without the (missing) output
> lines for each file being transfered, $t->{fileCnt} is never incremented,
> and thus is 0 after the transfer.
>
> This results in:
>
> if ( $newStat->{fileCnt} == 0 ) {
>$noFilesErr ||= "No files dumped for share $shareName";
> }
>
> I'm having a hard time finding an example of what the tarmode verbose
> output used to look like, and also how to get (actual) verbose output from
> the new smbclient.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Micha Silver  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for verifying. I hope someone with good regex skills will work out
>> a solution. It seems newer samba versions return results formatted slightly
>> differently, so parsing fails.
>> There is a config setting:  $Conf{BackupZeroFilesIsFatal} = 1; (Under
>> "Schedule").
>> I have changed this to '0' so that even tho' I get the warning, the
>> "partial" backup is still saved.
>>
>>
>> On 01/04/2016 11:14 AM, Otto Wincrantz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> For the record I am experiencing the same issue as you are seeing with a
>> BP install on a CentOS 7.2 with smbclient 4.2.3.
>> Backups are working for the 1st share listed in the job, but BackupPC
>> reports them as failed with "backup failed (No files dumped for share
>> backuppc$)"
>>
>> A resolution would be most welcome...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Otto
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Micha Silver  wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/12/2015 20:26, pasci wrote:
>>>
>>> I tried to add the "verbose" option, and I'm still getting a failure:
>>>
>>> Missunderstanding - The verbose option is only ONE of TWO required changes. 
>>> The second one is to fix the regex of Smb.pm. Because my know how to create 
>>> a new filter is really bad, I can't publish the solution for this (I've 
>>> tried, but is still not working). Perhaps someone else has an idea/fixed 
>>> regex?
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, I got it now.
>>> So this problem parsing the output of smbclient affect both versions 3.x
>>> and 4.x of BackupPC.
>>> Quite a show stopper.
>>>
>>>
>>> +--
>>> |This was sent by p.kuen...@pk-its.com via Backup Central.
>>> |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com.
>>> +--
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ___
>>> BackupPC-users mailing listbackuppc-us...@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> List:https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
>>> Wiki:http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
>>> Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
>>>
>>> This mail was received via Mail-SeCure System.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Micha Silver
>>> Arava Drainage Authority
>>> cell: +972-523-665918
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Otto Wincrantz*
>> EMEA IT Manager
>> *O*  +*46 31 7504815 <46%2031%207504815>*  |  *M*  +46 733 525862  |  *E*
>>   * owinc...@tibco.com * |
>> *TIBCO Software* |  Första Långgatan 26 41328 Gothenburg, Sweden |
>> www.tibco.com  |
>>
>>
>>
>> The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended
>> only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
>> confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
>> 

Re: [BackupPC-users] Garbage into XferLog.z - [SOLVED]

[Bzzzz]

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:14:59 +1100
Adam Goryachev  wrote:

> On 14/01/16 07:22, B wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > First, I already have had this problem for this particular machine
> > when I wanted it to be a client (garbage into NewFileList).
> > It runs under a Debian sid 64bits, just like half of my park
> > (1/2: sid 64bits & 32bits, 2/2: jessie 32bits).
> >
> > Today, it becomes the backuppc svr and I still have problems
> > (NewFileList is now empty).
> >
> > The main problem is:
> > /usr/share/backuppc/bin/BackupPC_zcat pc/backuppcsvr.domain/XferLOG.z
> > only return garbage (a bit like if file had a different encoding,
> > which is not possible as all machines works with UTF-8); so,
> > no backup is made from the server itself:(
> >
> > * Where could it come from?
> >
> > * How to fix that?
> >  
> Does this happen for all machines you are backing up, or just one?
> Can you provide a copy of the "garbage" file (ie, attach the xferlog.z 
> if it isn't too big).

Apparently, I spoke too fast: I rebooted the backuppc svr after a
maintenance stop this morning and to my surprise I just notice that all
machines are ok on the backuppc I/F.

So, this weird problem was probably caused by an electric glitch when
installing the perl pkgs &| the backuppc pkg, as I reinstalled them all
five days ago.

JY

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
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/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC 4 very slow

[Les Mikesell]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
 wrote:
> 2016-01-19 9:39 GMT+01:00 Gandalf Corvotempesta
> :
>> srv2: "merge #2 -> 1"
>
> As expected, #2 now is missing. I have #1 (incremental), #3 (incremental)
>
> there are some issues As I'm using standard BPC4
> configuration, I think that there are some bugs.
>

I'd bump up FullKeepCntMin and IncrKeepCntMin to the numbers you want
to see if that keeps them from being expired early.  I always did that
with v3 too just in case something odd happened with the system clock
and to keep backups after decommissioning a host.

Also, since the convention for expiry parameters is
"FullKeepPeriod/FullKeepCnt" etc refer to *Filled* backups, and
"IncrKeepPeriod/IncrKeepCnt" refer to "Unfilled" backups if you change
the scheduling you may need to adjust the FillCycle setting.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
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/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC 4 very slow

[Gandalf Corvotempesta]

2016-01-19 17:01 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> I'd bump up FullKeepCntMin and IncrKeepCntMin to the numbers you want
> to see if that keeps them from being expired early.  I always did that
> with v3 too just in case something odd happened with the system clock
> and to keep backups after decommissioning a host.

Bumped Full to 3 (it was 1) and Incremental to 21 (it was 7)

But, at least for Full, this is a great waste of space.

> Also, since the convention for expiry parameters is
> "FullKeepPeriod/FullKeepCnt" etc refer to *Filled* backups, and
> "IncrKeepPeriod/IncrKeepCnt" refer to "Unfilled" backups if you change
> the scheduling you may need to adjust the FillCycle setting.

So, what do you suggest ? I would like to have 1 full every 30 days
and 1 incremental each day
being able to revert to each day up to full (30 days before)

I can also try with 1 full every 15 days, having 2 full each month,
but this will double the used space.

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
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/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC 4 very slow

[Les Mikesell]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta
 wrote:
> 2016-01-19 17:01 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
>> I'd bump up FullKeepCntMin and IncrKeepCntMin to the numbers you want
>> to see if that keeps them from being expired early.  I always did that
>> with v3 too just in case something odd happened with the system clock
>> and to keep backups after decommissioning a host.
>
> Bumped Full to 3 (it was 1) and Incremental to 21 (it was 7)
>
> But, at least for Full, this is a great waste of space.
>
>> Also, since the convention for expiry parameters is
>> "FullKeepPeriod/FullKeepCnt" etc refer to *Filled* backups, and
>> "IncrKeepPeriod/IncrKeepCnt" refer to "Unfilled" backups if you change
>> the scheduling you may need to adjust the FillCycle setting.
>
> So, what do you suggest ? I would like to have 1 full every 30 days
> and 1 incremental each day
> being able to revert to each day up to full (30 days before)
>
> I can also try with 1 full every 15 days, having 2 full each month,
> but this will double the used space.

The space usage will only be affected by files that are
changed/deleted between runs.  Any file that still has identical
content will be pooled into one stored instance regardless of how many
backups contain it.   That's the main advantage of BPC over other
systems.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
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/

Re: [BackupPC-users] BPC 4 very slow

[Gandalf Corvotempesta]

2016-01-19 17:31 GMT+01:00 Les Mikesell :
> The space usage will only be affected by files that are
> changed/deleted between runs.  Any file that still has identical
> content will be pooled into one stored instance regardless of how many
> backups contain it.   That's the main advantage of BPC over other
> systems.

Ok, let's try with 1 full every 15 days and 1 incremental every other
days. Up to 30 backups

Could you suggest a config ? There is something wrong with mine.

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
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/