Re: [BackupPC-users] Setup for Windows backup with rsync
Sorry to be so late to the party but I have been rather distracted this least week. I have a similar setup at home and use rsync very easily. My network is friendly enough so on the backup host "ra" I have this in the /etc/fstab //bastet.home.brnikat.com/c /mnt/bastet cifs defaults,auto,rw,soft,credentials=/etc/backuppc/bastet-credentials 0 0 where bastet is the Wndows machine. /etc/backuppc/bastet-credentials contains these lines username=jean password=Brnikat domain=BRNIKAT and I am giving away no secrets because my wife Jean died almost two years and neither her account nor bastet are now in existence. ra is then backed up in the normal way, by rsync, including /mnt/bastet and excluding anything else mounted below /mnt. It worked very well for me though I now see it would be more elegant to mount the CIFS system somewhere other than /mnt and exclude that directory entirely. Motto: Sometimes you should think about backing up a machine's filesystem and not a machine per se, As always, YMMV. Paul On 20/01/2024 05:19, Les Mikesell wrote: On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 4:06 PM Stephen Blackwell wrote: My external backup drive died recently so I bought a NAS and installed a docker with Backuppc in it and set it up to backup my Linux box. Works like a charm. Now I want to add my Windows laptop to the list of clients. I was following this guide but I get this error in the XferLOG.bad.z file: You are supposed to use the rsyncd backup method in backuppc with that setup, not rsync. The difference is that rsyncd expects to connect directly with a listening rsync daemon, not start one with ssh. ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] How to really/immediately exclude stuff from next backup
This may sound fatuous but I am serious. Have you considered installing more disk(s)? Sometimes throwing hardware rather than liveware at a problem is more cost-effective. The former gets ever cheaper whereas the latter is ever more expensive. I doubled the size of my pool over the last year by replacing each element of the RAID array in turn, thereby maintaining continuous service. Paul On 14/10/2023 21:43, marki wrote: Hello, I'm having a hard time here excluding stuff starting with the next backup. The problem is the disk containing the pools is not large enough to host more full backups. But we don't want to touch our retention policy for now, so we are trying to exclude some things starting now. But it's not working, details below: An example/lab: Let's say we add /path/to/exclusion to the exclusion list. In this example 2845 is the last full, and I'm trying to do another full which is going to be 2846. However 2846 seems to be populated with the content from 2845 (including the stuff I have excluded). It looks like it's first copying all the stuff from 2845 (even the excluded path) and then later tries to remove it again from 2846. Which is also taking forever in the original example as it's a directory tree with millions of files. Also in the original example the disk isn't large enough, so we're not even making it to that stage. How do I actually exclude a path from the next backup, such that it is not even temporarily created? I.e. such that the disk doesn't fill up AND such that it is fast. Thanks, Marki ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] ZFS very slow with BackupPC_refCountUpdate
I really don't understand this. My backuppc system is a very elderly Q6600 2.4GHz with 8GB RAM. System disks are ext4; /var/lib/backuppc is a 3x4TB in a ZFS RAID configuration. Works like a dream. We could try to swap information if you wish but I am not entirely sure the list wants to see the gory details. Paul On 23/04/2021 11:05, Ghislain Adnet wrote: > hi :) > > i reply to myself, i think i will abandon zfs completly after trying > to tweak it nothing solve the issue. I have incredible slowdown > because of it. On btrfs host i dont have any issue at all. > > i join a graph of zfs cpu usage (all in iowait) and a btrfs one. If > anyone has any idea it would be great :) > > > the mid day spike is all /BackupPC_refCountUpdate , the night is the > backups > > > > > ___ > 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] btrfs questions
But backuppc works just fine on a BSD-licensed mainline kernel. On 06/03/2021 14:46, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 8:26 AM Paul Leyland <mailto:paul.leyl...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Very happy with ZFS myself. YMMV. > > > If only they would move to a FOSS license instead of CDDL it could be > included in the mainline kernel. > > Thanks, > Richard > > > ___ > 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] btrfs questions
I've seen bit-rot on a few disks out of hundreds used over the last
35-ish years.
I am now storing /var/lib/backuppc on a ZFS RAID since the last
catastophic disk failure. Sure enough one of those disks started writing
garbage and then was taken off-line through infant mortality. The pool
kept going. A year or so later a different disk went off-line, with a
dying SATA cable this time. The pool kept going. In both cases
rebuilding the array ("re-silvering") happened automagically.
Very happy with ZFS myself. YMMV.
Paul
On 06/03/2021 13:50, G.W. Haywood via BackupPC-users wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2021, John Botha (SourceForge) wrote:
>
>> ... take the plunge with BackupPC, ... bit rot protection is key ...
>> ...
>> ... fragmentation ... how best to approach this with a combination
>> of rebalancing and scrubbing, or if there is another way or other
>> aspects to keep in mind.
>> ...
>> ... I thought it would be safest to use nodatacow, but then read
>> that doing so would also stop bit rot protection, so that's a real
>> bummer. Am I missing something, or do I have that right?
>> ...
>> ... have btrfs handle de/compression, as that would seem to involve
>> less time doing redundant calculations. Does that make sense?
>> ...
>> ... seen some flame wars around the use of btrfs.
>
> I don't want to add fuel to any flames.
>
> In my view you're making it more difficult for yourself than you need
> to (or indeed should do) if you're just starting out with BackupPC.
>
> My take on it is that you will have quite enough on your plate getting
> BackupPC bedded down - so it's doing what you want in your particular
> circumstances, and you're comfortable with that - without adding into
> the mix a whole bunch of variables which don't need to be variables.
>
> If 'bit rot' protection is key to you, then set up BackupPC to avoid
> any possibility of it happening, spend a few months (or perhaps years)
> making sure that it isn't happening, and worry about filesystem(s),
> and any quirks they may have, some other time.
>
> I personally have never seen any evidence of what I imagine might be
> called 'bit rot' because in my view if something like that's happening
> then the system is badly broken and it needs fixing. But I have seen
> plenty of damaged filesystems. When I have had experience of damaged
> filesystems, I believe it's fair to say that the newer the filesystem,
> the more difficult it has been to repair it. The first (and last!!!)
> ReiserFS I ever used failed catastrophically and was never recovered.
> I've recovered everything from DOS to EXT/2/3/4 systems, usually with
> little difficulty; I've never used BTRFS so I can't offer any comment
> on its repairability.
>
> Right now I use EXT4 almost exclusively, and there would have to be a
> really technologically disruptive development in filesystem capability
> (like an order of magnitude improvement in some performance metric) to
> encourage me even to consider changing to anything else. I don't care
> if anybody thinks I'm an old stick-in-the-mud, I just want it to work.
>
> The other day when I was out with one of my dogs I fell into chatting
> with a couple of other walkers. This particular dog is a difficult
> case from the rescue. One of the walkers said "you seem to have a
> calm aura about you". Of course that's necessary for these difficult
> rescue cases. I thanked her for the compliment although I didn't say
> "it's because I use BackupPC and EXT4" - which wouldn't have been too
> far from the truth.
>
___
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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] OT: To top-post or not?
I have, very reluctantly, been forced to accept top-posting. On 03/02/2021 14:09, Sorin Srbu wrote: > Hello all, > > Years ago when I last worked daily, and before my timeout, with BPC, the > deal was to not top post. There were usually corrective comments if somebody > forgot him/herself and in no uncertain terms. > > Has that changed over the years, and one can now top-post without > infuriating and invoking the wrath of the senior members and list admins on > this list? > Seeing as how most mailers now top-post per default, I thought I'd ask... > > Thanks for any insights. > > > > ___ > 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/ I much prefer adding new material at the end because it gives my readers a chance to note about that which I am commenting. Further, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put. 8-) ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Backuppc in large environments
My network is rather smaller but still bigger than most home systems. Please keep that in mind. The backup server is a very elderly "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz" with 8G RAM. /var/lib/backuppc is a ZFS raidz array of three 4TB disks, giving a useful space of 3.6T, of which 1.1T is now used. The CGI interface reports: There are 9 hosts that have been backed up, for a total of: * 109 full backups of total size 15511.81GB (prior to pooling and compression), * 65 incr backups of total size 235.11GB (prior to pooling and compression). but I like to keep an archive as well as a backup so storing 15.5TB of files in 1.1TB of space may be misleading because there are so many files de-duplicated. The server is on a single 1 gigabit NIC. It runs up to four backups simultaneously and a full backup of a 0.4TB machine takes araound 12 hours; this appears to be disk IO bound at each end as incremental backups of other machines proceed at a decent rate. TL:DR: A 10 year old box very easily copes with my load. YMMV. In particular, you may wish to have more than one ethernet NIC and perhaps more RAM. Paul On 01/12/2020 15:33, Dave Sherohman wrote: > Hey, all! > > I've been looking at setting up amanda as a backup solution for a > fairly large environment at work and have just stumbled across > backuppc. While I love the design and scheduling methods of amanda, > I'm also a big fan of incremental-only reverse-delta backup methods > such as that used by backuppc, so now I'm wondering... > > How big can backuppc reasonably scale? > > The environment I'm dealing with includes around 75 various servers > (about 2/3 virtual, 1/3 physical), mostly running Debian, with a few > machines running other linux distros and maybe a dozen Windows > machines. Total data size that we want to maintain backups for is > around 70 TB. Our current backup system is using Tivoli Storage > Manager, a commercial product that uses an incremental-only strategy > similar to backuppc's, and the daily backup volume is running around > 750 GB per day, with two database servers providing the majority of > that volume (400 GB/day from one and 150 GB/day from the other). > > Is this something that backuppc could reliably handle? > > If so, what kind of CPU resources would it require? I've already got > a decent handle on the network requirements from observing the current > TSM backups and can calculate likely disk storage needs, but I have no > idea what to expect the backup server to need in the way of processing > power. > > > > ___ > 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/ OpenPGP_0xBA5077290CFFDDA6.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] fileListReceive never comes after 12 hours, how to debug?
Sounds very similar to the rsync change as reported by me a few days ago
and solved by David While.
Ont the client machine(s) run "rsync --version". If you get 3.2.3 you
probably have this issue. Full details and possible workarounds are
given at https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/issues/369
Paul
On 29/11/2020 11:55, David MENTRÉ wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> First of all, I would like to thank BackupPC's developers for their
> software. I use it to backup a few personal Linux and Windows machines
> at home and it has worked flawlessly for years. It is easy to use,
> robust and well documented. Thanks a lot!
>
> But today I am facing a strange issue that I have issues to debug. :-(
>
> * Context:
>
> * BackupPC software installed on a fresh Debian 10 machine, using
> standard debian package (Version: 3.3.2-2+deb10u1) with HDD
> * Machine "louise" to backup giving me headaches: Fedora 31 Linux
> machine, with SSD drive
> o about 39Gb to backup
> o "louise" machine is backupped using ssh+rsync
> o I have backupped it for years without any issue up to now.
> Regular "I changed nothing!" argument (but something should
> have changed, of course)
>
> * The Issue: After a backup of "louise" machine starts (either
> automatically by BackupPC server or manually), the file transfer never
> succeeds, i.e. I am never reaching the point where there are two PIDs
> in BackupPC status page. And of course the backups never finishing,
> even after waiting 12h!
>
> * More information:
>
> Doing backup of a remote Linux machine with same BackupPC server works
> (for about 8Gb of data, 1h behind a 100Mbit connexion), so BackupPC
> server seems to work.
>
> I have no problem to connect from BackupPC to root account on "louise"
> machine. No such errors in the log files of BackupPC.
>
> Locally on "louise" machine, I am able to rsync the relevant directory
> I want to backup to another local disk (from SSD disk to another HDD
> disk) in about 6 minutes. Total transferred file size: 41,280,889,122
> bytes. File list generation time: 0.001 seconds. So it seems SSD disk
> is working correctly and file list generation time is negligible.
>
> As recommended in the FAQ, I launched a full dump manually with -v
> verbose option:
>
> """
> $ /usr/share/backuppc/bin/BackupPC_dump -v -f louise
> cmdSystemOrEval: about to system /bin/ping -c 1 louise
> cmdSystemOrEval: finished: got output PING louise (192.168.0.5) 56(84)
> bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from louise (192.168.0.5): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.160 ms
>
> --- louise ping statistics ---
> 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.160/0.160/0.160/0.000 ms
>
> cmdSystemOrEval: about to system /bin/ping -c 1 louise
> cmdSystemOrEval: finished: got output PING louise (192.168.0.5) 56(84)
> bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from louise (192.168.0.5): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.150 ms
>
> --- louise ping statistics ---
> 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.150/0.150/0.150/0.000 ms
>
> CheckHostAlive: returning 0.150
> full backup started for directory /
> started full dump, share=/
> Running: nice -n 19 /usr/bin/ssh -q -x -l root louise nice -n 0
> /usr/bin/rsync --server --sender --numeric-ids --perms --owner --group
> -D --links --hard-links --times --block-size=2048 --recursive
> --ignore-times . /
> Xfer PIDs are now 9330
> xferPids 9330
> Got remote protocol 31
> Negotiated protocol version 28
> Sent include: /home
> Sent exclude: /*
> Sent exclude: /home/david/.cache
> Sent exclude: /home/david/00-poubelle
> Sent exclude: /home/lost+found
> Sent exclude: /home/david/.opam
>
> [No answer after 12 hours, so I enter ^C ]
>
> fileListReceive() failed
> Done: 0 files, 0 bytes
> Got fatal error during xfer (fileListReceive failed)
> Backup aborted by user signal
> Not saving this as a partial backup since it has fewer files than the
> prior one (got 0 and 0 files versus 0)
> dump failed: fileListReceive failed
> """
>
> Here is the content of louise.pl configuration file:
>
> """
> #
> # ssh+rsync
> #
> $Conf{XferMethod} = 'rsync';
>
> $Conf{BackupFilesOnly} = ['/home'];
>
> $Conf{BackupFilesExclude} = [ '/home/david/.cache',
> '/home/david/00-poubelle', '/home/lost+found', '/home/david/.opam' ];
>
> $Conf{RsyncClientCmd} = 'nice -n 19 $sshPath -q -x -l root $host nice
> -n 19 $rsyncPath $argList+';
> """
>
>
> I can also do following rsync command from 'backuppc' account on
> BackupPC server:
>
> $ /usr/bin/time rsync -azx --stats root@louise:/home/david
> /var/lib/backuppc/manual
>
> It saves the 39Gb of data in about 26 minutes. File list generation
> time: 0.001 seconds. File list transfer time: 0.000 seconds
>
>
> In my current understanding, disks on both louise and BackupPC server
> machines are working, network is working and configuration aspects
> should be OK.
>
> I am stuck at this point.
>
> Any idea how I could debug this issue?
>
> Many
Re: [BackupPC-users] tar exit status.
Perhaps so. When I saw the term "exit status" I immediately read the
tar(1) man page and found that the exit status for that command is 0, 1
or 2. As I say, it misled me.
Paul
On 29/11/2020 13:42, backu...@kosowsky.org wrote:
> Not misleading. It's a perl standard and backuppc is written in perl.
>
> Paul Leyland wrote at about 08:22:05 + on Sunday, November 29, 2020:
> > Thank you. I would argue that reporting an exit status of 512 when
> > tar(1) returns 2 is misleading. It misled me anyway.
> >
> > The source of the problem is that localhost.pl ran a tar(1) locally
> > under the backuppc account and did not set the --ignore-failed-read
> > option. Using the generic $Conf{TarClientCmd} from config.pl solved that
> > one.
> >
> > Looks like the localhost.pl file in the Ubuntu distribution (at least)
> > could do with a little attention.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 28/11/2020 22:52, Craig Barratt via BackupPC-users wrote:
> > > The reported exit status is shifted left by 8 bits, so that means tar
> > > exited with status 2, which means failure.
> > >
> > > You should look at the XferLOG to see what error(s) it reported. It
> > > could be something benign, but you should be sure before you start
> > > disabling error checking.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 8:59 AM Paul Leyland > > <mailto:paul.leyl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a golden oldie. At least a decade after
> > >
> https://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/backuppc-users/thread/AANLkTi%3DuzdiYV1jCzofkfeEQ6-czx34uEmYx2159Uxa%2B%40mail.gmail.com/#msg26616969
> > >
> <https://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/backuppc-users/thread/AANLkTi%3DuzdiYV1jCzofkfeEQ6-czx34uEmYx2159Uxa%2B%40mail.gmail.com/#msg26616969>
> > > appeared, Ubuntu still ships with a backuppc which reports
> > >
> > > backup failed (Tar exited with error 512 () status) for the
> localhost target, even though the backup is, AFAICT, adequate in every
> significant respect.
> > >
> > > Should the source be changed to mask off only the bottom 8 bits?
> > >
> > > For the time being I will add the option "--ignore-failed-read" to
> > > TarClientCmd for localhost. Cosmetic, true, because the backup is
> > > fully functional but still...
> > >
> > > ___
> > > BackupPC-users mailing list
> > > BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > <mailto:BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
> > > List:
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> > > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users>
> > > Wiki: https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki
> > > <https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki>
> > > Project: https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/
> > > <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/
> > [DELETED ATTACHMENT OpenPGP_0xBA5077290CFFDDA6.asc, application/pgp-keys]
> > [DELETED ATTACHMENT OpenPGP_signature, application/pgp-signature]
> > ___
> > 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/
OpenPGP_0xBA5077290CFFDDA6.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] tar exit status.
Thank you. I would argue that reporting an exit status of 512 when
tar(1) returns 2 is misleading. It misled me anyway.
The source of the problem is that localhost.pl ran a tar(1) locally
under the backuppc account and did not set the --ignore-failed-read
option. Using the generic $Conf{TarClientCmd} from config.pl solved that
one.
Looks like the localhost.pl file in the Ubuntu distribution (at least)
could do with a little attention.
Paul
On 28/11/2020 22:52, Craig Barratt via BackupPC-users wrote:
> The reported exit status is shifted left by 8 bits, so that means tar
> exited with status 2, which means failure.
>
> You should look at the XferLOG to see what error(s) it reported. It
> could be something benign, but you should be sure before you start
> disabling error checking.
>
> Craig
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 8:59 AM Paul Leyland <mailto:paul.leyl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> This is a golden oldie. At least a decade after
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/backuppc-users/thread/AANLkTi%3DuzdiYV1jCzofkfeEQ6-czx34uEmYx2159Uxa%2B%40mail.gmail.com/#msg26616969
>
> <https://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/backuppc-users/thread/AANLkTi%3DuzdiYV1jCzofkfeEQ6-czx34uEmYx2159Uxa%2B%40mail.gmail.com/#msg26616969>
> appeared, Ubuntu still ships with a backuppc which reports
>
> backup failed (Tar exited with error 512 () status) for the localhost
> target, even though the backup is, AFAICT, adequate in every significant
> respect.
>
> Should the source be changed to mask off only the bottom 8 bits?
>
> For the time being I will add the option "--ignore-failed-read" to
> TarClientCmd for localhost. Cosmetic, true, because the backup is
> fully functional but still...
>
> ___
> BackupPC-users mailing list
> BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> <mailto:BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
> List:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users>
> Wiki: https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki
> <https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/wiki>
> Project: https://backuppc.github.io/backuppc/
> <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/
OpenPGP_0xBA5077290CFFDDA6.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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] tar exit status.
This is a golden oldie. At least a decade after https://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/backuppc-users/thread/AANLkTi%3DuzdiYV1jCzofkfeEQ6-czx34uEmYx2159Uxa%2B%40mail.gmail.com/#msg26616969 appeared, Ubuntu still ships with a backuppc which reports backup failed (Tar exited with error 512 () status) for the localhost target, even though the backup is, AFAICT, adequate in every significant respect. Should the source be changed to mask off only the bottom 8 bits? For the time being I will add the option "--ignore-failed-read" to TarClientCmd for localhost. Cosmetic, true, because the backup is fully functional but still... OpenPGP_0xBA5077290CFFDDA6.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Runaway backppc on Ubuntu 20.04LTS
That appears to have been the problem and the solution. Thank you! ATB, Paul On 26/11/2020 10:41, David While via BackupPC-users wrote: > > Have a look here https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/issues/369 > > I think this might be the same problem - not actually a problem with > BackupPC but with rsync. > > David While BSc(Hons) MBSC CEng CITP > > On 26/11/2020 10:19, Paul Leyland wrote: >> >> Another problem has cropped up with the newly installed 20.04LTS release. >> >> The Ubuntu system backs up several other machines as well as itself, >> one of which runs Ubuntu 20.10, two Gentoo boxes and a Windows 10 >> machine. The Linux boxes all use rsync whereas the Windows box >> exports its disk to the backup machine which mounts it with Samba. >> Backups of the server and of its Windows client work fine. >> >> So far the other Ubuntu system and one Gentoo box go into a strange >> failure mode. It is possble that the other may do so too but it >> hasn't had chance to do so yet. >> >> The failure goes as follows. First a backup, whether incremental or >> full doesn't matter, is started. I monitor its progress with lsof on >> each system to see what is being read and written. I also use "ls >> -larts" in active subdirectories of /var/lib/backuppc/pc/PCNAME/new >> to monitor what is being written and read. All goes well for a long >> time then activity apparently ceases, but only apparently. >> >> What is really happening is that the newly formed XferLOG.z grows >> enormously. Until it was killed just now, that file had reached >> 4180700817 bytes (3.9GiB) after 6 hours and then stopped growing. A >> typical log file might be 20MiB. Examination with BackupPC_zcat on >> the giant file shows the regular log lines for a long time but >> eventually turns into binary mush. >> >> The NewFileList file is also strange. It ends part way through a >> standard line as follows: >> >> 486f208a006a335645ec1839b9c001ac 189 >> f%2f/flib/ffirmware/fcxgb4/fconfigs/attrib >> bc6f59e44fdcdac6a4034b43f588bafe 449 f%2f/flib/ffirmware/fcxgb4/attrib >> 3f250cfd4201077c6e341454dd042d3c 766 f%2f/flib/ffi >> >> and is 24756 (i.e. 6 * 4096) bytes long. >> >> Anyone else seen similar behaviour and / or have an idea as to what >> may be going wrong? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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/ > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> > Virus-free. www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > ___ > 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/ OpenPGP_0xBA5077290CFFDDA6.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] localhost backup and IPV6
Having received valuable help from David While (the 2nd of his suggestions is still being tested but it is looking good) I thought I would give something back in return. This may already be well known to some but the material below might prove useful to others. The localhost.pl target should dump /etc by using tar transport. The new installation steadfastly refused to do so, saying that the system did not respond to pings. This is manifestly ridiculous! I remembered from solving an issue on SWMBO's Win-10 machine some months back that IPV6 and IPV4 do not always play well together. Sure enough, disabling IPV6 on the server made things start working again. This is an all-IPV4 network here so disabling IPV6 is no great hardship. https://itsfoss.com/disable-ipv6-ubuntu-linux/ shows how to do it on a Ubuntu system. The underlying issue ought to be fixed properly one day but this is a good enough work-around for me for the time being. Paul OpenPGP_0xBA5077290CFFDDA6.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] Runaway backppc on Ubuntu 20.04LTS
Another problem has cropped up with the newly installed 20.04LTS release. The Ubuntu system backs up several other machines as well as itself, one of which runs Ubuntu 20.10, two Gentoo boxes and a Windows 10 machine. The Linux boxes all use rsync whereas the Windows box exports its disk to the backup machine which mounts it with Samba. Backups of the server and of its Windows client work fine. So far the other Ubuntu system and one Gentoo box go into a strange failure mode. It is possble that the other may do so too but it hasn't had chance to do so yet. The failure goes as follows. First a backup, whether incremental or full doesn't matter, is started. I monitor its progress with lsof on each system to see what is being read and written. I also use "ls -larts" in active subdirectories of /var/lib/backuppc/pc/PCNAME/new to monitor what is being written and read. All goes well for a long time then activity apparently ceases, but only apparently. What is really happening is that the newly formed XferLOG.z grows enormously. Until it was killed just now, that file had reached 4180700817 bytes (3.9GiB) after 6 hours and then stopped growing. A typical log file might be 20MiB. Examination with BackupPC_zcat on the giant file shows the regular log lines for a long time but eventually turns into binary mush. The NewFileList file is also strange. It ends part way through a standard line as follows: 486f208a006a335645ec1839b9c001ac 189 f%2f/flib/ffirmware/fcxgb4/fconfigs/attrib bc6f59e44fdcdac6a4034b43f588bafe 449 f%2f/flib/ffirmware/fcxgb4/attrib 3f250cfd4201077c6e341454dd042d3c 766 f%2f/flib/ffi and is 24756 (i.e. 6 * 4096) bytes long. Anyone else seen similar behaviour and / or have an idea as to what may be going wrong? Thanks, Paul OpenPGP_0xBA5077290CFFDDA6.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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/
Re: [BackupPC-users] Problems with newly installed backppc on Ubuntu 20.04LTS
That was it! Many thanks. Paul On 25/11/2020 15:50, David While via BackupPC-users wrote: > > Scratch that... > > I remember now - > > The apache config file for BackupPC on my system looks like: > > AuthType Basic > AuthUserFile /etc/BackupPC/apache.users > AuthName "BackupPC" > > > # Apache 2.4 > > Require valid-user > > Require local > > > > > You need to comment out the lines below by putting # in front. > > # > # Require local > # > > I am on Fedora but it sounds like the same problem. The default > configuration restricts access to the local machine only. > > David While BSc(Hons) MBCS CEng CITP > > On 25/11/2020 15:30, Paul Leyland wrote: >> >> I installed the apache2 and backuppc packages on a Ubuntu 20.04LTS >> system but can not use the CGI interface. No mater what I try, I >> invariably get a response: >> >> >> Forbidden >> >> You don't have permission to access this resource. >> >> >> Apache/2.4.41 (Ubuntu) Server at ra.home.brnikat.com Port 80 >> >> >> The backuppc sofware seems to be running because >> >> backuppc@ra:/usr/share/backuppc/bin$ ./BackupPC_serverMesg status info >> >> generates plausible output. It looks as if Apache was not configured >> properly by the installation procedure. Reading the Backuppc >> documentation has not proved enlightening. >> >> I have created a /etc/backuppc/htpasswd which has passwords set both >> for my own username (pcl) and for backuppc. >> >> The /var/log/access.log file contains lines such as >> >> 192.168.1.104 - - [25/Nov/2020:15:23:54 +] "GET /backuppc >> HTTP/1.1" 403 501 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.9) >> Gecko/20100101 Goanna/4.4 Firefox/68.9 PaleMoon/28.8.4" >> >> with corresponding lines in error.log as >> >> [Wed Nov 25 15:23:54.077976 2020] [authz_core:error] [pid 27014] >> [client 192.168.1.104:35534] AH01630: client denied by server >> configuration: /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ >> >> but I can not find anything wrong with the permissions of >> /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ or its contents: >> >> root@ra:/var/log/apache2# ls -ld /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ >> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 25 15:02 /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ >> root@ra:/var/log/apache2# ls -ls /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ >> total 0 >> 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Nov 12 2019 image -> ../image >> 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Nov 12 2019 index.cgi -> >> ../../../lib/backuppc/cgi-bin/index.cgi >> root@ra:/var/log/apache2# ls -Lls /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ >> total 20 >> 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 25 15:02 image >> 16 -rwsr-x--- 1 backuppc www-data 14488 Nov 12 2019 index.cgi >> >> Have others seen this behaviour? Does anyone know what might be >> wrong and would be willing to help me get things working? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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/ > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> > Virus-free. www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > ___ > 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/ OpenPGP_0xBA5077290CFFDDA6.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] Problems with newly installed backppc on Ubuntu 20.04LTS
I installed the apache2 and backuppc packages on a Ubuntu 20.04LTS system but can not use the CGI interface. No mater what I try, I invariably get a response: Forbidden You don't have permission to access this resource. Apache/2.4.41 (Ubuntu) Server at ra.home.brnikat.com Port 80 The backuppc sofware seems to be running because backuppc@ra:/usr/share/backuppc/bin$ ./BackupPC_serverMesg status info generates plausible output. It looks as if Apache was not configured properly by the installation procedure. Reading the Backuppc documentation has not proved enlightening. I have created a /etc/backuppc/htpasswd which has passwords set both for my own username (pcl) and for backuppc. The /var/log/access.log file contains lines such as 192.168.1.104 - - [25/Nov/2020:15:23:54 +] "GET /backuppc HTTP/1.1" 403 501 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.9) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/4.4 Firefox/68.9 PaleMoon/28.8.4" with corresponding lines in error.log as [Wed Nov 25 15:23:54.077976 2020] [authz_core:error] [pid 27014] [client 192.168.1.104:35534] AH01630: client denied by server configuration: /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ but I can not find anything wrong with the permissions of /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ or its contents: root@ra:/var/log/apache2# ls -ld /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 25 15:02 /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ root@ra:/var/log/apache2# ls -ls /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ total 0 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Nov 12 2019 image -> ../image 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Nov 12 2019 index.cgi -> ../../../lib/backuppc/cgi-bin/index.cgi root@ra:/var/log/apache2# ls -Lls /usr/share/backuppc/cgi-bin/ total 20 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 25 15:02 image 16 -rwsr-x--- 1 backuppc www-data 14488 Nov 12 2019 index.cgi Have others seen this behaviour? Does anyone know what might be wrong and would be willing to help me get things working? Thanks, Paul OpenPGP_0xBA5077290CFFDDA6.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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/
