Re: [BackupPC-users] Weird backup commands

[Craig Barratt via BackupPC-users]

Jaime,

I'm glad the issue is resolved.

I don't think your tone was that snippy or rude, although not answering my
specific debugging questions and replying with "SMB worked almost 100% when
we used backuppc 3.3.1, so I’m not sure why it should be so difficult." is
borderline.

Helping someone debug an issue is like playing "20 questions" over email.
If each round-trip is lossy then the chances of figuring out the issue go
way down.  I did ask you about the smb config settings.  Your reply didn't
answer my question and repeated that it worked fine in 3.3.1, so something
is wrong.  So that caused my debugging effort to stall 6 days ago.  The
process works best when people stick to the facts with concrete, precise
observations and data, and not clutter things with opinions that might be
wrong or be irrelevant.  Perhaps my question about the smb settings did
indeed cause you to look at them and figure out the problem, or Holger's or
Michael's followups triggered you to do so, which is good.

As you know, we've exchanged a couple of emails about the "256 exit error"
off-list.  You sent me a log file - thanks. I replied that it looks clean
and doesn't show the error, and I asked you to send me any other log file
that actually shows the error.  That was almost 24 hours ago.

Craig

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:44 AM Jaime Fenton 
wrote:

> Thanks for the follow up on this thread.
>
> The issue is resolved.
>
> I had put some items in the global config that had affected some singular
> configs. Once I corrected the global config and rolled all configs back to
> the global, it started working (for the most part, but there's a thread
> about my 256 exit error).
>
> Thanks for everyones help on this.
>
> Cheers,
> Jaime
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Stowe [mailto:michael.st...@member.mensa.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:28 AM
> To: General list for user discussion, questions and support <
> backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
> Cc: Jaime Fenton ; Craig Barratt <
> cbarr...@users.sourceforge.net>
> Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Weird backup commands
>
> On 2018-10-30 08:04, Holger Parplies wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Jaime Fenton wrote on 2018-10-24 16:17:24 + [Re: [BackupPC-users]
> > Weird backup commands]:
> >> Also, my apologies if my tone came across as snippy or rude [...]
> >> I???m just frustrated with the issues I???m having [...]
> >
> > well ...
> >
> >> [...]
> >> If I thought samba was not going to work, then I would dump it.
> >
> > Believe it or not, Samba *can* never work properly, presuming you want
> > both incremental and exact backups. As Craig pointed out, Samba *can*
> > never give you the in-/exclude options rsync does. If you're fine with
> > all of that, then go ahead. The only benefit Samba gives you is
> > presumably the ease of setup, and you're apparently not getting much
> > out of that, because it doesn't "just work". You're going to have to
> > put in some work one way or the other.
> > There
> > is simply no way around that.
>
> Let me amplify this:  samba can also easily miss incremental files whose
> timestamp is not as expected, something rsync is not subject to.
> There's a set of issues surrounding open and locked files, which I won't
> attempt to cover in detail here, except to point out that it's suited to a
> use case where the files you care about are expected to be static during
> the backup period.
>
> >> [...]
> >> Out of curiosity, has anyone else had a problem with samba 4.7.1? I
> >> did see one mention in a forum somewhere that there issues were
> >> resolved with samba 4.7.3. Thoughts?
>
> Between 4.7.1 and 4.7.3 of Samba, there were a number of server changes
> around vulnerabilities, particularly using the SMB1 protocol.  smbclient
> (the only relevant portion) is largely unchanged.  So, my main thoughts
> are:
> 1) No, this isn't relevant
> 2) Reading the release notes is a good way to find out if a minor version
> change would be important or not
>
> > It seems highly unlikely that one Samba version changes the command
> > line BackupPC passes to it. Much more likely is an issue with your
> > BackupPC configuration. That is why Craig asked:
> >
> >> [...]
> >> What are your settings for $Conf{SmbClientFullCmd},
> >> $Conf{SmbShareName}, $Conf{BackupFilesOnly} and
> >> $Conf{BackupFilesExclude} on the two machines?
> >
> > So, my thought is: answer the question. Without that information, the
> > only help we can give you is, "there's probably something wrong with
> > your configuration".
> >
> > I might add that each of these settings individually might be global
> > or host specific. How do you manipulate the settings? Do you edit the
> > config file or use the web interface?
> >
> >> [...]
> >> ??? Good example: Running: /usr/bin/smbclient
> >> computername.domainname\\C\$ >> $> -U AL\\backuppc -E -d 1 -c tarmode\ full -TcN /data/backuppc/pc/
> >> computername.domainname /timeStamp.level0 - Users\\username\\AppData
> >> 

Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC administrative attention needed email incorrect?

[Mike Hughes]

>Jamie Burchell wrote on 2018-10-30 09:31:13 - [[BackupPC-users] BackupPC
>administrative attention needed email incorrect?]:
>> [...]
>> Yesterday, I received the following email from the BackupPC process:
>> [...]
>> > Yesterday 156 hosts were skipped because the file system containing
>> > /var/lib/BackupPC/ was too full.  [...]
>>
>> The email was correct in that disk space was low, but the number of
>> reported ???hosts skipped??? doesn???t seem right. I have 39 hosts, 152 full
>> backups and 952 incrementals. The email says they were skipped, but there
>> are no gaps that I can see in any of the backups. Just wondering if this is
>> a bug.
>
>without looking into the code, 156 seems to be 4 * 39 - could it be that
>after 4 wakeups disk space dropped low enough for backups to resume (by
>backup expiration or someone deleting something from the partition)? That
>would explain that there is no gap. You just might find the backups happened
>at a slightly later point in time than you would normally expect.
>
>Hope that helps.
>
>Regards,
>Holger

that makes perfect sense. That wording has caught me off-guard too. I think a 
more accurate phrasing would be:
"Yesterday 156 backups were skipped..."

Anyone care to show me how I can submit a simple patch for this in github? The 
obvious option is to click the pencil icon to edit, but it says I'd be forking 
the whole project.


___
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] BackupPC administrative attention needed email incorrect?

[Jamie Burchell]

Yes, these entries are in LOG.0.z:



2018-10-28 01:21:07 Started incr backup on X
 (pid=5527,
share=/var/lib/mysqlbackup)

2018-10-28 01:21:21 Finished incr backup on X

2018-10-28 01:00:00 Disk too full (96%); skipped 39 hosts

2018-10-28 01:00:00 Next wakeup is 2018-10-28 02:00:00

2018-10-28 02:00:00 Disk too full (96%); skipped 39 hosts

2018-10-28 02:00:00 Next wakeup is 2018-10-28 03:00:00

2018-10-28 03:00:00 Disk too full (96%); skipped 39 hosts

2018-10-28 03:00:00 Next wakeup is 2018-10-28 04:00:00

2018-10-28 04:00:00 Disk too full (96%); skipped 39 hosts



Not quite sure what’s going on with the times there – I suspect BST to GMT
if they are local timestamps.



I have a further 3 “disk too full” entries the following day (I only
received that one email though):



2018-10-29 01:00:00 Disk too full (96%); skipped 39 hosts

2018-10-29 01:00:00 Running 2 BackupPC_nightly jobs from 0..15 (out of 0..15)

2018-10-29 01:00:00 Running BackupPC_nightly -m -P 10 0 127 (pid=16405)

2018-10-29 01:00:00 Running BackupPC_nightly -P 10 128 255 (pid=16406)

2018-10-29 01:00:00 Next wakeup is 2018-10-29 02:00:00

2018-10-29 01:00:03 BackupPC_nightly now running
BackupPC_refCountUpdate -m -s -c -P 10 -r 0-127

2018-10-29 01:00:03 BackupPC_nightly now running
BackupPC_refCountUpdate -m -s -c -P 10 -r 128-255

2018-10-29 01:00:03  admin1 : __bpc_pidStart__ 16458

2018-10-29 01:00:03  admin : __bpc_pidStart__ 16457

2018-10-29 01:04:26  admin : __bpc_pidEnd__ 16457

2018-10-29 01:04:26 BackupPC_nightly now running BackupPC_sendEmail

2018-10-29 01:04:27 Finished  admin  (BackupPC_nightly -m -P 10 0 127)

2018-10-29 01:07:13  admin1 : __bpc_pidEnd__ 16458

2018-10-29 01:07:13 Finished  admin1  (BackupPC_nightly -P 10 128 255)

2018-10-29 01:07:13 Pool nightly clean removed 0 files of size 0.00GB

2018-10-29 01:07:13 Pool is 0.00GB, 0 files (0 repeated, 0 max chain,
0 max links), 0 directories

2018-10-29 01:07:13 Cpool nightly clean removed 0 files of size 0.00GB

2018-10-29 01:07:13 Cpool is 0.00GB, 0 files (0 repeated, 0 max chain,
0 max links), 0 directories

2018-10-29 01:07:13 Pool4 nightly clean removed 0 files of size 0.00GB

2018-10-29 01:07:13 Pool4 is 0.00GB, 0 files (0 repeated, 0 max chain,
0 max links), 0 directories

2018-10-29 01:07:13 Cpool4 nightly clean removed 36902 files of size 1.10GB

2018-10-29 01:07:13 Cpool4 is 92.23GB, 1406944 files (0 repeated, 0
max chain, 75576 max links), 16512 directories

2018-10-29 01:07:13 Running BackupPC_rrdUpdate (pid=16597)

2018-10-29 01:07:14  admin-1 : 2018-10-29 01:07:14 RRD updated: date
1540857600; cpoolKb 0.00; total 2907482280.097656; poolKb
0.00; pool4Kb 0.00; cpool4Kb 94439608.00

2018-10-29 01:07:14 Finished  admin-1  (BackupPC_rrdUpdate)

2018-10-29 02:00:00 Disk too full (96%); skipped 39 hosts

2018-10-29 02:00:00 Next wakeup is 2018-10-29 03:00:00

2018-10-29 03:00:00 Next wakeup is 2018-10-29 04:00:00

2018-10-29 03:00:01 Started full backup on X
 (pid=17422,
share=/etc)

...

2018-10-29 04:00:00 Disk too full (96%); skipped 39 hosts



It seemed to have resumed the backups without intervention from me.



I have since increased the volume capacity anyway.


Kind regards,

*Jamie*

*From:* Craig Barratt via BackupPC-users [mailto:
backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net]
*Sent:* 30 October 2018 18:12
*To:* General list for user discussion, questions and support <
backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
*Cc:* Craig Barratt 
*Subject:* Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC administrative attention needed
email incorrect?



Holger is correct - the email reports the cumulative number of hosts
skipped over the last 24 hours.



If you look in the main LOG file you should see timestamped messages for
each wakeup, like this:



Disk too full (XX%); skipped YY hosts



Based on the email message, you should see several of those messages
(likely 4 as Holger suggests with 39 hosts each) over the last 24 hours.


Craig



On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:42 AM Jamie Burchell  wrote:

Hi

Thanks for the quick reply. I see, yes that does seem like the most likely
explanation. I didn't consider than 156 could be an accumulative value. I
didn't manually delete anything, so I'm guessing a clean-up happened.

Thanks again
Jamie

-Original Message-
From: Holger Parplies [mailto:wb...@parplies.de]
Sent: 30 October 2018 15:24
To: Jamie Burchell 
Cc: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC administrative attention needed
email incorrect?

Hi,

Jamie Burchell wrote on 2018-10-30 09:31:13 - [[BackupPC-users]
BackupPC administrative attention needed email incorrect?]:
> [...]
> Yesterday, I received the following email from the BackupPC process:
> [...]
> > Yesterday 156 hosts were skipped because the file system containing
> > /var/lib/BackupPC/ was too full.  [...]
>
> The email was correct in that disk space was low, but 

Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC administrative attention needed email incorrect?

[Craig Barratt via BackupPC-users]

Holger is correct - the email reports the cumulative number of hosts
skipped over the last 24 hours.

If you look in the main LOG file you should see timestamped messages for
each wakeup, like this:

Disk too full (XX%); skipped YY hosts

Based on the email message, you should see several of those messages
(likely 4 as Holger suggests with 39 hosts each) over the last 24 hours.

Craig

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:42 AM Jamie Burchell  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Thanks for the quick reply. I see, yes that does seem like the most likely
> explanation. I didn't consider than 156 could be an accumulative value. I
> didn't manually delete anything, so I'm guessing a clean-up happened.
>
> Thanks again
> Jamie
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Holger Parplies [mailto:wb...@parplies.de]
> Sent: 30 October 2018 15:24
> To: Jamie Burchell 
> Cc: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC administrative attention needed
> email incorrect?
>
> Hi,
>
> Jamie Burchell wrote on 2018-10-30 09:31:13 - [[BackupPC-users]
> BackupPC administrative attention needed email incorrect?]:
> > [...]
> > Yesterday, I received the following email from the BackupPC process:
> > [...]
> > > Yesterday 156 hosts were skipped because the file system containing
> > > /var/lib/BackupPC/ was too full.  [...]
> >
> > The email was correct in that disk space was low, but the number of
> > reported ???hosts skipped??? doesn???t seem right. I have 39 hosts,
> > 152 full backups and 952 incrementals. The email says they were
> > skipped, but there are no gaps that I can see in any of the backups.
> > Just wondering if this is a bug.
>
> without looking into the code, 156 seems to be 4 * 39 - could it be that
> after 4 wakeups disk space dropped low enough for backups to resume (by
> backup expiration or someone deleting something from the partition)? That
> would explain that there is no gap. You just might find the backups
> happened at a slightly later point in time than you would normally expect.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Regards,
> Holger
>
>
> ___
> 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/
>
___
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] Weird backup commands

[Jaime Fenton]

Thanks for the follow up on this thread.

The issue is resolved.

I had put some items in the global config that had affected some singular 
configs. Once I corrected the global config and rolled all configs back to the 
global, it started working (for the most part, but there's a thread about my 
256 exit error).

Thanks for everyones help on this.

Cheers,
Jaime

-Original Message-
From: Michael Stowe [mailto:michael.st...@member.mensa.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:28 AM
To: General list for user discussion, questions and support 

Cc: Jaime Fenton ; Craig Barratt 

Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] Weird backup commands

On 2018-10-30 08:04, Holger Parplies wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jaime Fenton wrote on 2018-10-24 16:17:24 + [Re: [BackupPC-users]
> Weird backup commands]:
>> Also, my apologies if my tone came across as snippy or rude [...]
>> I???m just frustrated with the issues I???m having [...]
>
> well ...
>
>> [...]
>> If I thought samba was not going to work, then I would dump it.
>
> Believe it or not, Samba *can* never work properly, presuming you want
> both incremental and exact backups. As Craig pointed out, Samba *can*
> never give you the in-/exclude options rsync does. If you're fine with
> all of that, then go ahead. The only benefit Samba gives you is
> presumably the ease of setup, and you're apparently not getting much
> out of that, because it doesn't "just work". You're going to have to
> put in some work one way or the other.
> There
> is simply no way around that.

Let me amplify this:  samba can also easily miss incremental files whose 
timestamp is not as expected, something rsync is not subject to.
There's a set of issues surrounding open and locked files, which I won't 
attempt to cover in detail here, except to point out that it's suited to a use 
case where the files you care about are expected to be static during the backup 
period.

>> [...]
>> Out of curiosity, has anyone else had a problem with samba 4.7.1? I
>> did see one mention in a forum somewhere that there issues were
>> resolved with samba 4.7.3. Thoughts?

Between 4.7.1 and 4.7.3 of Samba, there were a number of server changes around 
vulnerabilities, particularly using the SMB1 protocol.  smbclient (the only 
relevant portion) is largely unchanged.  So, my main thoughts
are:
1) No, this isn't relevant
2) Reading the release notes is a good way to find out if a minor version 
change would be important or not

> It seems highly unlikely that one Samba version changes the command
> line BackupPC passes to it. Much more likely is an issue with your
> BackupPC configuration. That is why Craig asked:
>
>> [...]
>> What are your settings for $Conf{SmbClientFullCmd},
>> $Conf{SmbShareName}, $Conf{BackupFilesOnly} and
>> $Conf{BackupFilesExclude} on the two machines?
>
> So, my thought is: answer the question. Without that information, the
> only help we can give you is, "there's probably something wrong with
> your configuration".
>
> I might add that each of these settings individually might be global
> or host specific. How do you manipulate the settings? Do you edit the
> config file or use the web interface?
>
>> [...]
>> ??? Good example: Running: /usr/bin/smbclient
>> computername.domainname\\C\$> $> -U AL\\backuppc -E -d 1 -c tarmode\ full -TcN /data/backuppc/pc/
>> computername.domainname /timeStamp.level0 - Users\\username\\AppData
>> Users\\ username \\Documents Users\\ username
>> \\Downloads Users\\ username
>> \\My\ Documents Users\\ username
>> \\Desktop
>>
>> ??? Error example: Running: /usr/bin/smbclient 
>> computername.domainname \\C\$ -U AL\\backuppc -E -d 1
>> -c tarmode\ full -Tc - Users\\\*\\AppData\\\*
>> Users\\\*\\Documents\\\*
>> Users\\\*\\Downloads\\\* Users\\\*\\Desktop\\\* Users\\\*\\My\
>> Documents\\\*
>
> This seems to be badly mangled by both your MUA as well as yourself -
> I'm guessing the spaces around "computername.domainname" as well as
> "username"
> are probably not there (they're not escaped, so they would separate
> arguments, basically meaning the good example command would be
> nonsense, even with the file tags removed).
> In any case, the confusion Windoze path separators introduce is a pain.
> I'm
> not sure this is better with rsync, but it probably is - at least you
> *should
> be* able to consistently use "/", which doesn't need escaping. Oh, and
> you can use both in- and excludes with rsync. You can't with Samba.
> You know that, right?
>
> My reaction, at least, is, I'm not taking a closer look at any of
> that, because it's bogus, confusing, and irrelevant. We need the
> configuration details.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Also, my apologies if my tone came across as snippy or rude, I'm just
> frustrated with questions (and followups) that prevent the possibility
> of meaningful help.
>
> Regards,
> Holger
>
>
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> List:   

Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC administrative attention needed email incorrect?

[Jamie Burchell]

Hi

Thanks for the quick reply. I see, yes that does seem like the most likely
explanation. I didn't consider than 156 could be an accumulative value. I
didn't manually delete anything, so I'm guessing a clean-up happened.

Thanks again
Jamie

-Original Message-
From: Holger Parplies [mailto:wb...@parplies.de]
Sent: 30 October 2018 15:24
To: Jamie Burchell 
Cc: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC administrative attention needed
email incorrect?

Hi,

Jamie Burchell wrote on 2018-10-30 09:31:13 - [[BackupPC-users]
BackupPC administrative attention needed email incorrect?]:
> [...]
> Yesterday, I received the following email from the BackupPC process:
> [...]
> > Yesterday 156 hosts were skipped because the file system containing
> > /var/lib/BackupPC/ was too full.  [...]
>
> The email was correct in that disk space was low, but the number of
> reported ???hosts skipped??? doesn???t seem right. I have 39 hosts,
> 152 full backups and 952 incrementals. The email says they were
> skipped, but there are no gaps that I can see in any of the backups.
> Just wondering if this is a bug.

without looking into the code, 156 seems to be 4 * 39 - could it be that
after 4 wakeups disk space dropped low enough for backups to resume (by
backup expiration or someone deleting something from the partition)? That
would explain that there is no gap. You just might find the backups
happened at a slightly later point in time than you would normally expect.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Holger


___
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] Weird backup commands

[Michael Stowe]

On 2018-10-30 08:04, Holger Parplies wrote:

Hi,

Jaime Fenton wrote on 2018-10-24 16:17:24 + [Re: [BackupPC-users]
Weird backup commands]:
Also, my apologies if my tone came across as snippy or rude [...] 
I???m just

frustrated with the issues I???m having [...]


well ...


[...]
If I thought samba was not going to work, then I would dump it.


Believe it or not, Samba *can* never work properly, presuming you want 
both
incremental and exact backups. As Craig pointed out, Samba *can* never 
give
you the in-/exclude options rsync does. If you're fine with all of 
that, then
go ahead. The only benefit Samba gives you is presumably the ease of 
setup,
and you're apparently not getting much out of that, because it doesn't 
"just
work". You're going to have to put in some work one way or the other. 
There

is simply no way around that.


Let me amplify this:  samba can also easily miss incremental files whose 
timestamp is not as expected, something rsync is not subject to.  
There's a set of issues surrounding open and locked files, which I won't 
attempt to cover in detail here, except to point out that it's suited to 
a use case where the files you care about are expected to be static 
during the backup period.



[...]
Out of curiosity, has anyone else had a problem with samba 4.7.1? I 
did see
one mention in a forum somewhere that there issues were resolved with 
samba

4.7.3. Thoughts?


Between 4.7.1 and 4.7.3 of Samba, there were a number of server changes 
around vulnerabilities, particularly using the SMB1 protocol.  smbclient 
(the only relevant portion) is largely unchanged.  So, my main thoughts 
are:

1) No, this isn't relevant
2) Reading the release notes is a good way to find out if a minor 
version change would be important or not


It seems highly unlikely that one Samba version changes the command 
line

BackupPC passes to it. Much more likely is an issue with your BackupPC
configuration. That is why Craig asked:


[...]
What are your settings for $Conf{SmbClientFullCmd}, 
$Conf{SmbShareName},
$Conf{BackupFilesOnly} and $Conf{BackupFilesExclude} on the two 
machines?


So, my thought is: answer the question. Without that information, the 
only

help we can give you is, "there's probably something wrong with your
configuration".

I might add that each of these settings individually might be global or
host specific. How do you manipulate the settings? Do you edit the 
config

file or use the web interface?


[...]
??? Good example: Running: /usr/bin/smbclient 
computername.domainname\\C\$ 
-U AL\\backuppc -E -d 1 -c tarmode\ full -TcN /data/backuppc/pc/ 
computername.domainname /timeStamp.level0 - Users\\username\\AppData 
Users\\ username \\Documents Users\\ username 
\\Downloads Users\\ username \\My\ 
Documents Users\\ username \\Desktop


??? Error example: Running: /usr/bin/smbclient  
computername.domainname \\C\$ -U AL\\backuppc -E -d 1 
-c tarmode\ full -Tc - Users\\\*\\AppData\\\* Users\\\*\\Documents\\\* 
Users\\\*\\Downloads\\\* Users\\\*\\Desktop\\\* Users\\\*\\My\ 
Documents\\\*


This seems to be badly mangled by both your MUA as well as yourself - 
I'm
guessing the spaces around "computername.domainname" as well as 
"username"
are probably not there (they're not escaped, so they would separate 
arguments,
basically meaning the good example command would be nonsense, even with 
the

file tags removed).
In any case, the confusion Windoze path separators introduce is a pain. 
I'm
not sure this is better with rsync, but it probably is - at least you 
*should
be* able to consistently use "/", which doesn't need escaping. Oh, and 
you
can use both in- and excludes with rsync. You can't with Samba. You 
know that,

right?

My reaction, at least, is, I'm not taking a closer look at any of that,
because it's bogus, confusing, and irrelevant. We need the 
configuration

details.

Hope that helps.

Also, my apologies if my tone came across as snippy or rude, I'm just
frustrated with questions (and followups) that prevent the possibility
of meaningful help.

Regards,
Holger


___
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List:
https://u2182357.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=rBK8reUlX8Sxr7Iz1fV-2F7azDepoKsO2pWuEqaZQXziclOk1C3J1HK5ryLm0UkwauF8WGAbPQPulkw6jGlj-2BNdMKzyS4-2BY7RcC51XaueEjwE-3D_OypFYCWzG5ApGW-2FFpGTxc4RCS9eud0Dl1htN5rYoUZ8To4zeNUFBkAGI3hzer91CEbovT0uHKS5g6KcNPIwMvz-2FNHTng-2BY-2Fax7k3U0jEfJ4khOUNpv4xYynMLaHyxmTerj3jFw-2Bui1DjreafkyZNbF13q0FCpXMO-2BkU30rYL4BFUhpQdloIJolYBx98kSKV6Si5OG65P5DVrUHgPc6LaNrpk8YuZ2xROf0KMXCdIK-2BrOIG-2FnKM7dAc2-2BcgK5YDnQ
Wiki:

Re: [BackupPC-users] DHCP backups - only once possible

[G.W. Haywood via BackupPC-users]

Hi there,

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Craig Barratt wrote:


I've been reviewing the mail list over the last few months, and
there are still a couple of reported issues I'm trying to replicate
or learn more about.


I'm still looking at the issue I had with BackupPC a couple of months
ago (Re: BackupPC 4.2.1 apparently in an infinite loop.) and I think
it might have been a kernel problem.  At least after I upgraded the
kernel - and that's the only change that I made - the problem seemed
to go away.  Calls to select() in rsync_bpc were timing out.  Here's
an example strace output:

select(4, [3], [], NULL, {tv_sec=5, tv_usec=41543}) = 0 (Timeout)
select(4, [3], [], NULL, {tv_sec=60, tv_usec=0}) = 0 (Timeout)
[previous line repeated many times]
select(4, [3], [], NULL, {tv_sec=60, tv_usec=0} 

Also at some stage I was getting an undefined symbol error which was
causing backups to fail.  I added the test below to fix it.  I don't
know what I did that might have triggered this, it was incidental to
trying to find out what was causing the select() timeouts.

8<--
ged@tornado:/usr/share/backuppc/bin$ diff -U3 BackupPC_dump.~1~  BackupPC_dump
--- BackupPC_dump.~1~   2018-08-28 11:22:01.688465718 +0100
+++ BackupPC_dump   2018-09-21 18:14:29.376719313 +0100
@@ -2189,7 +2189,7 @@
 }
 } else {
 foreach my $m ( @$msg ) {
-print($LogFd $m);
+print($LogFd $m) if( defined $LogFd && defined $m );
 }
 }
 }
8<--

HTH

--

73,
Ged.


___
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] BackupPC administrative attention needed email incorrect?

[Holger Parplies]

Hi,

Jamie Burchell wrote on 2018-10-30 09:31:13 - [[BackupPC-users] BackupPC 
administrative attention needed email incorrect?]:
> [...]
> Yesterday, I received the following email from the BackupPC process:
> [...]
> > Yesterday 156 hosts were skipped because the file system containing
> > /var/lib/BackupPC/ was too full.  [...]
> 
> The email was correct in that disk space was low, but the number of
> reported ???hosts skipped??? doesn???t seem right. I have 39 hosts, 152 full
> backups and 952 incrementals. The email says they were skipped, but there
> are no gaps that I can see in any of the backups. Just wondering if this is
> a bug.

without looking into the code, 156 seems to be 4 * 39 - could it be that
after 4 wakeups disk space dropped low enough for backups to resume (by
backup expiration or someone deleting something from the partition)? That
would explain that there is no gap. You just might find the backups happened
at a slightly later point in time than you would normally expect.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Holger


___
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] Weird backup commands

[Holger Parplies]

Hi,

Jaime Fenton wrote on 2018-10-24 16:17:24 + [Re: [BackupPC-users] Weird 
backup commands]:
> Also, my apologies if my tone came across as snippy or rude [...] I???m just
> frustrated with the issues I???m having [...]

well ...

> [...]
> If I thought samba was not going to work, then I would dump it.

Believe it or not, Samba *can* never work properly, presuming you want both
incremental and exact backups. As Craig pointed out, Samba *can* never give
you the in-/exclude options rsync does. If you're fine with all of that, then
go ahead. The only benefit Samba gives you is presumably the ease of setup,
and you're apparently not getting much out of that, because it doesn't "just
work". You're going to have to put in some work one way or the other. There
is simply no way around that.

> [...]
> Out of curiosity, has anyone else had a problem with samba 4.7.1? I did see
> one mention in a forum somewhere that there issues were resolved with samba
> 4.7.3. Thoughts?

It seems highly unlikely that one Samba version changes the command line
BackupPC passes to it. Much more likely is an issue with your BackupPC
configuration. That is why Craig asked:

> [...]
> What are your settings for $Conf{SmbClientFullCmd}, $Conf{SmbShareName},
> $Conf{BackupFilesOnly} and $Conf{BackupFilesExclude} on the two machines?

So, my thought is: answer the question. Without that information, the only
help we can give you is, "there's probably something wrong with your
configuration".

I might add that each of these settings individually might be global or
host specific. How do you manipulate the settings? Do you edit the config
file or use the web interface?

> [...]
> ??? Good example: Running: /usr/bin/smbclient 
> computername.domainname\\C\$ -U 
> AL\\backuppc -E -d 1 -c tarmode\ full -TcN /data/backuppc/pc/ 
> computername.domainname /timeStamp.level0 - Users\\username\\AppData Users\\ 
> username \\Documents Users\\ username 
> \\Downloads Users\\ username \\My\ 
> Documents Users\\ username \\Desktop
> 
> ??? Error example: Running: /usr/bin/smbclient  
> computername.domainname \\C\$ -U AL\\backuppc -E -d 1 -c 
> tarmode\ full -Tc - Users\\\*\\AppData\\\* Users\\\*\\Documents\\\* 
> Users\\\*\\Downloads\\\* Users\\\*\\Desktop\\\* Users\\\*\\My\ Documents\\\*

This seems to be badly mangled by both your MUA as well as yourself - I'm
guessing the spaces around "computername.domainname" as well as "username"
are probably not there (they're not escaped, so they would separate arguments,
basically meaning the good example command would be nonsense, even with the
file tags removed).
In any case, the confusion Windoze path separators introduce is a pain. I'm
not sure this is better with rsync, but it probably is - at least you *should
be* able to consistently use "/", which doesn't need escaping. Oh, and you
can use both in- and excludes with rsync. You can't with Samba. You know that,
right?

My reaction, at least, is, I'm not taking a closer look at any of that,
because it's bogus, confusing, and irrelevant. We need the configuration
details.

Hope that helps.

Also, my apologies if my tone came across as snippy or rude, I'm just
frustrated with questions (and followups) that prevent the possibility
of meaningful help.

Regards,
Holger


___
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/

[BackupPC-users] BackupPC administrative attention needed email incorrect?

[Jamie Burchell]

Hi there



Yesterday, I received the following email from the BackupPC process:



> Subject: BackupPC administrative attention needed

>

> Yesterday 156 hosts were skipped because the file system containing

> /var/lib/BackupPC/ was too full.  The threshold in the configuration

> file is 95%, while yesterday the file system was up to 96% full.

> Please find more space on the file system, or reduce the number of

> full or incremental backups that we keep.

>

> Regards,

> PC Backup Genie



The email was correct in that disk space was low, but the number of
reported “hosts skipped” doesn’t seem right. I have 39 hosts, 152 full
backups and 952 incrementals. The email says they were skipped, but there
are no gaps that I can see in any of the backups. Just wondering if this is
a bug.



BackupPC 4.2.1-3.el7

BackupPC-XS.x86_64 0.57-1.el7.centos

rsync-bpc.x86_64 3.0.9.11-1.el7.centos
___
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] Backup Error not encountered before

[Thorsten Peters]

Dear all,

I've encountered this same error message several times now.

In my case setting the log level to 5 helped to trace the error back to 
several files which seem to have duplicates. The error message always 
reads something like:

tarExtract: Botch - got multiple pool file matches
tarExtract: bpc_poolWrite_write: got 2 matching files for digest 
d2734b9512114c9e6687a54c7b4f7a50


This seems to be the same problem as mentioned in the recent thread 
"Backup failure due to two specific files".
In my case here, when a full backup is running it never comes to an end 
and then starts all over again. If it is an incremental backup, however, 
everything is fine and the backup completes.


Strangely, this error suddenly shows up for files that have been on the 
hosts for ages. I already tried to manually remove the problematic files 
from a host, after which the full backups succeed again, but around a 
week later other files suddenly start having the same problem.


This first happened a while ago with one host, but recently several 
other hosts started having the same problems on Windows 7, 10, and 
Server 2008 and it is becoming a serious issue.


So far I helped myself by increasing the full backup period of the hosts 
such that only incremental backups are currently running - but this is 
obviously not a good solution.


I'm using backuppc 4.2.1, samba version 4.3.11-Ubuntu, and tar (GNU tar) 
1.28.


Best regards,
Thorsten


On 30-Oct-18 12:51 AM, Craig Barratt via BackupPC-users wrote:
You could look at the "Errors" display option in the host summary web 
page, which should make it easier to find an unexpected message.  It is 
likely close to the end of the file, before any cleanup is done.


You could also email me the XferLOG file.

Craig

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:44 PM Jaime Fenton 
mailto:jaime.fen...@animallogic.ca>> wrote:


Would you be able to specify what error I would be looking for in
the log file that could narrow that down?

__ __

Thanks,

Jaime

__ __

*From:*Craig Barratt via BackupPC-users
[mailto:backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
]
*Sent:* Monday, October 29, 2018 4:31 PM
*To:* General list for user discussion, questions and support
mailto:backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net>>
*Cc:* Craig Barratt mailto:cbarr...@users.sourceforge.net>>
*Subject:* Re: [BackupPC-users] Backup Error not encountered before

__ __

It means BackupPC_tarExtract encountered a fatal error, and exited
with status 1.  There should be an error message in the XferLOG
file, but you should also look in the client or main BackupPC LOG
file.

__ __

Craig

__ __

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:26 PM Jaime Fenton
mailto:jaime.fen...@animallogic.ca>>
wrote:

Hi there all,



Has anyone seen this error before: 



backup failed (BackupPC_tarExtract exited with fail status 256)

Does anyone know what fail status 256 refers to?



I’m using BackupPC 4.2.1 with Samba 4.7.1 and backing up a
windows 7 machine.



Thanks,

Jaime 



--
Jaime Fenton
Support Engineer

T: +1 604 398 4800 (main)
D: +1 604 398 4813 (direct)
E: jaime.fen...@animallogic.ca 

840 Cambie Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 2P6
CANADA


LinkedIn 
Facebook
 Twitter
 Instagram


Animal Logic 

www.animallogic.com 

*CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVILEGE NOTICE*
This email is intended only to be read or used by the addressee.
It is confidential and may contain privileged information. If
you are not the intended recipient, any use, distribution,
disclosure or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this
communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken
delivery to you. If you have received this email in error,
please delete it and notify us immediately by telephone or
email.

___
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/



___
BackupPC-users mailing