Jean-Louis Martineau wrote at 14:50 -0500 on Mar 6, 2008:
> By defaults, amanda will never do more than runtapes * tape_length,
> unless you set 'maxdumpsize', added in 2.4.4.
... or the estimated dump size winds up being less than the actual
dump size. But I understand your basic point.
I w
know about this one...
=
Last night I got a bunch of these...
elmer /hr lev 3 FAILED [dumps way too big, 9065 KB, must skip
incremental dumps]
As a result, lots of DLEs were just skipped. This can happen if, for
instance, one DLE had lots of changes and its incremental dump
Yes, it's the classic problem. I understand the cause, but I have a
question.
a little background for those who don't know about this one...
=
Last night I got a bunch of these...
elmer /hr lev 3 FAILED [dumps way too big, 9065 KB, must skip
incremental dumps]
A
On Jan 11, 2008 5:37 AM, Andrey Shmigelsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have configured my tapetype to be DVD size length
>
> tapetype DVD_SIZED_DISK
>
> define tapetype DVD_SIZED_DISK {
> comment "DVDsized virtual tape"
> length 4482 Mbytes
> filemark 4 KB
> }
>
>
> And i have enough spac
I have configured my tapetype to be DVD size length
tapetype DVD_SIZED_DISK
define tapetype DVD_SIZED_DISK {
comment "DVDsized virtual tape"
length 4482 Mbytes
filemark 4 KB
}
And i have enough space on my holdingdisk, but still i have this message.
What im doing wrong?
a écrit :
> >> >> On Thursday 22 March 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>> Hello,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> One backup partly failed with :
> >> >>>
> >> >>> FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
>
STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
> > > k400 /mnt/d_mails lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, 1025270 KB, must
> > >skip incremental dumps]
> > > k400 /home/jpp lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, 1116100 KB, must
> > >skip incremental dumps]
> > > k400 /etc
gt;> >>> Hello,
>> >>>
>> >>> One backup partly failed with :
>> >>>
>> >>> FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
>> >>> k400 /mnt/d_mails lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, 1025270 KB,
>> >>> mu
; >
> >> >One backup partly failed with :
> >> >
> >> >FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
> >> > k400 /mnt/d_mails lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, 1025270 KB,
> >> > must skip incremental dumps]
> >> > k400 /home/jpp l
ne backup partly failed with :
> >>>
> >>> FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
> >>> k400 /mnt/d_mails lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, 1025270 KB, must
> >>> skip incremental dumps]
> >>> k400 /home/jpp lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too
STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
>> > k400 /mnt/d_mails lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, 1025270 KB,
>> > must skip incremental dumps]
>> > k400 /home/jpp lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, 1116100 KB,
>> > must skip incremental dumps]
>> > k400 /etc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 20:13 -0400, Gene Heskett a écrit :
>> On Thursday 22 March 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> One backup partly failed with :
>>>
>>> FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
>
Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 20:13 -0400, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> On Thursday 22 March 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >One backup partly failed with :
> >
> >FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
> > k400 /mnt/d_mails lev 1 FAILED [dump
On Thursday 22 March 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hello,
>
>One backup partly failed with :
>
>FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
> k400 /mnt/d_mails lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, 1025270 KB, must
>skip incremental dumps]
> k400 /home/jpp lev 1 FAILED [dumps
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> One backup partly failed with :
>
> FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
> k400 /mnt/d_mails lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, 1025270 KB, must
> skip incremental dumps]
> k400 /home/jpp lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big,
Hello,
One backup partly failed with :
FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
k400 /mnt/d_mails lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, 1025270 KB, must
skip incremental dumps]
k400 /home/jpp lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, 1116100 KB, must
skip incremental dumps]
k400 /etc lev 0
On Wednesday 09 July 2003 13:18, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:14:26PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Wednesday 09 July 2003 10:15, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>> >On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:52:27PM +0800, SIMTech wrote:
>> >> >From the above,
>> >> >I'd break both /home, and /Documents u
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:14:26PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 July 2003 10:15, Jon LaBadie wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:52:27PM +0800, SIMTech wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> >From the above,
> >> >I'd break both /home, and /Documents up into at least 3 pieces
> >> > each.
> >>
> >>
On Wednesday 09 July 2003 10:15, Jon LaBadie wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:52:27PM +0800, SIMTech wrote:
>> > If this is a new DLE, it must get a level 0 first.
>> > I'm guessing that the level 0 has never been done
>> > and this is what is "way too big".
>>
>> Yes John. You are right on this.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 09:52:27PM +0800, SIMTech wrote:
> > If this is a new DLE, it must get a level 0 first.
> > I'm guessing that the level 0 has never been done
> > and this is what is "way too big".
>
>
> Yes John. You are right on this
>
> > The confusing message is planner trying to
> If this is a new DLE, it must get a level 0 first.
> I'm guessing that the level 0 has never been done
> and this is what is "way too big".
Yes John. You are right on this
> The confusing message is planner trying to estimate
> a level 1, then finding out it is not allowed to
> do a level
handle it.
>
> Does anyone know how to correct this?
>
...
>
> FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
> jtlinux.SI //yinling/MyDocuments lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, must skip
> incremental dumps]
>
If this is a new DLE, it must get a level 0 first.
I'm guessing tha
ne know how to correct this?
>
>Thanks and best regards,
>Jason Pickering
>
>Here is the report...
>
>
>FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
>jtlinux.SI //yinling/MyDocuments lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big,
> must skip incremental dumps]
>
>
>STATISTICS:
>
//yinling/MyDocuments lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, must skip
incremental dumps]
STATISTICS:
Total Full Daily
Estimate Time (hrs:min)0:05
Run Time (hrs:min) 3:51
Dump Time (hrs:min)1:47
ents lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, must skip
incremental dumps]
STATISTICS:
Total Full Daily
Estimate Time (hrs:min)0:05
Run Time (hrs:min) 3:51
Dump Time (hrs:min)1:47 0:37 1
Hello
i get always this error during backup.
FAILURE AND STRANGE DUMP SUMMARY:
db2/izo0/mysql lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, must skip
incremental dumps]
fs1 /izo0/home/taoweb lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, must skip
incremental dumps]
fs1 /izo0/home/mup lev 1 FAILED
>Looking for "DELAYING DUMPS IF NEEDED" in amdump.NN produced:
>
>DELAYING DUMPS IF NEEDED, total_size 43441709, tape length 12019712 mark 392
>planner: FAILED biancha /dev/hda5 0 [dumps too big, but cannot incremental dum
>p new disk]
>planner: FAILED ikarus /dev/hda1 0 [dumps too big, but cannot
Amanda Version: 2.4.1p1
Amanda began giving me "dumps way too big, must skip incremental dumps" errors
about a week ago. We have been using Amanda for the past two years with no change
in config in the past 2 months.
*** THE DUMPS DID NOT FINISH PROPERLY!
*** A TAPE ERROR OCCURRED:
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Oscar Ricardo Silva
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 12:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Upgrade to 2.4.2p2 client generages "dumps way too big" message
I noticed that 2.4.2p1 had a problem on some Linu
ar lev 0 FAILED [dumps too big, but cannot incremental dump
>new disk]
This says this disk is new to Amanda, i.e. it's never been backed up
before (by Amanda). That cannot have happened just because the client
was upgraded (it's a server side issue).
>emissary.o /boot lev 1 FAILE
new
disk]
ser11-ar.g / lev 0 FAILED [dumps too big, but cannot incremental dump new
disk]
cba-ar.gw. /usr lev 0 FAILED [dumps too big, but cannot incremental dump
new disk]
emissary.o /boot lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, must skip incremental dumps]
utar3.gw.u /boot lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too
>ns0 / lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, must skip incremental dumps]
>...
>This does not really make sense to me bacause the majority of the systems have
> 6GB drives, and I have config'd amanda to use the two 35GB DLT drives. The b
>ackups that amanda did do total only about
I got the following message for all of my hosts, except those that it did a level 0
back up of.
ns0 / lev 1 FAILED [dumps way too big, must skip incremental dumps]
I read the Faq-o-matic on it, which says "...Amanda couldn't back up some disk because
it wouldn't fit in the ta
33 matches
Mail list logo
