Re: Will retry behavior again
Paul, we are running amanda v.2.4.5, on FC3. These are forced full dumps (dumplevel 0). I do not use negative chuncksize, but I do use negative "usedisk" (when you set how much of a disk must stay un-occupied by disk images). Do you think it may be somehow related? Also, I double-checked for "reserve" (set to 0) and "holdingdisk" was default (meaning I did not touch it at all before this last run, and now I set it explicitly to "yes"). We also cleared some HDD space, and I'm going to create a second holding disk. Is there anything you (all) can think of I must do before the next weekly run? > > The strange thing above seems the order of the events.> When bumping into EOT, I would expect the sequence:> - First taper bumps into end of tape:> taper: TRY-AGAIN 00-00029 [...No space left on device]> - then driver says to port-dumper:> kill whatever you're doing> driver: ABORT 00-00029 This command is missing above!!!> dumper: kill index command Here is what I found strange: 1) it was taping to the tape 2(weekly2), 2) when received the NODEVICE, adjusted to weekly3, which is a new tape(!), no dumps were done to it so far, and then 3) kill index->FAILED->TRY AGAIN->mismatch. I would expect the sequesnce to be 1) tape: weekly2, NODEVICE(?), FAILED 2) load tape weekly3 3) TRY AGAIN->whatever... The same happend for another DLE, when amanda adjusted from weekly1 to weekly2 - that DLE was has failed as well. The saddest part is that the biggest DLE are tend to fail. I really do not want to split this configuration into two, and currently thinking about writing a script which would check if any DLE has failed, adjust the configuration and force the dump on the same day. I realize this sounds awkward, but I do not see any other solution. Do you? Thanks Vera
Re: Will retry behavior again
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... taper: wrote label `weekly3' date `20050901' dumper: kill index command driver: result time 39992.417 from dumper0: FAILED 00-00029 ["data write: Connection reset by peer"] driver: result time 39992.417 from taper: TRY-AGAIN 00-00029 [writing file: No space left on device] driver: error time 39992.429 serial gen mismatch ^^^ -- so, AMANDA advanced to the next tape, the taper request to retry was actually made, but "serial gen mismatch" has happend. Driver keeps a table of which dumper is handling what. When it receives a command it also checks the table dumper-number-to-current-filesystem-it-is-handling. The "00029" is the "generation" number. Fine. First it receives a "FAILED" from dumper0, and thus it frees the table entry, effectively setting generation number to 0, to indicate it's doing nothing. Less than a microsecond later, it receives a "TRY-AGAIN" from taper, which is referring to the same generation number, but which was freed just before. So amanda says that it received a command for which the generation number did not match. OK, that explains the error message and what it means. The strange thing above seems the order of the events. When bumping into EOT, I would expect the sequence: - First taper bumps into end of tape: taper: TRY-AGAIN 00-00029 [...No space left on device] - then driver says to port-dumper: kill whatever you're doing driver: ABORT 00-00029 This command is missing above!!! dumper: kill index command But the "kill index" comes in first, followed by driver saying "it failed here", then followed by taper saying "tape is full". From this sequence, it seems amanda made the correct decision to not try again what taper instructed, because dumper signalled a fatal error first. Why would that happen??? I don't know. I searched google for the phrase - and did not find anything helpful about this error. Does anybody know what is this error means and how to deal with it? Also, I'm positive, that we had enough space for holding disk to hold this particuar FS. Why did it start "directly to tape" (log's the very first line)? Shot in the dark: maybe a "holdingdisk no" in the dumptype? See the output of "amadmin weekly disklist hercules". Another shot in the dark: what version of amanda is the server? Older versions had also a notion of "negative chunksize": dumps larger than the absolute value of chunksize were portdump too. Maybe you have a negative chunksize? The same older versions of amanda could also port-dump when chunksize was omitted. This is all from memory I don't even have an old man page around (except in my archive backups :-) Amanda 2.4.2 already has no more support for negative chunksizes (and warns if you use them). -- Paul Bijnens, XplanationTel +32 16 397.511 Technologielaan 21 bus 2, B-3001 Leuven, BELGIUMFax +32 16 397.512 http://www.xplanation.com/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** * I think I've got the hang of it now: exit, ^D, ^C, ^\, ^Z, ^Q, F6, * * quit, ZZ, :q, :q!, M-Z, ^X^C, logoff, logout, close, bye, /bye, * * stop, end, F3, ~., ^]c, +++ ATH, disconnect, halt, abort, hangup, * * PF4, F20, ^X^X, :D::D, KJOB, F14-f-e, F8-e, kill -1 $$, shutdown, * * kill -9 1, Alt-F4, Ctrl-Alt-Del, AltGr-NumLock, Stop-A, ...* * ... "Are you sure?" ... YES ... Phew ... I'm out * ***
Re: Will retry behavior again
Actually it was set to 0, since I it suppose to be archival dump(no incremental) Jon LaBadie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:40:14PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > Also, I'm positive, that we had enough space for holding disk to hold > > this particuar FS. Why did it start "directly to tape" (log's the very > > first line)? > > Have you adjusted the holding disk "reserve" parameter? > By default it reserves 100% for incrementals in case of > degraded operation (eg. no tape available). > > In my case, the holding disk can store several days > worth of normal backups, full and incremental. So I've > adjusted the reserve down to 10 or 20%. > > -- > Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] > JG Computing > 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 > Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Re: Will retry behavior again
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 02:40:14PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Also, I'm positive, that we had enough space for holding disk to hold > this particuar FS. Why did it start "directly to tape" (log's the very > first line)? Have you adjusted the holding disk "reserve" parameter? By default it reserves 100% for incrementals in case of degraded operation (eg. no tape available). In my case, the holding disk can store several days worth of normal backups, full and incremental. So I've adjusted the reserve down to 10 or 20%. -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Re: "Will retry" behavior
wrote: Here is the problem. For the full dumps we use 4 tapes (40G) on a run. "Short" filesystems are copied over without any problems, problems start with big filesystems. Surprizingly, we found out that only 3 tapes were used, but 2 "big" FS failed to go on tape, because there were "no space left". Someone recently posted a patch that delays taping until all dumps are collected in the holding disk. Then the largest fit algorithm should make optimal use of your tapes. But of course you need sufficient holding disk. Jon, thank you. The major problem we are facing is the free HDD space available - it is definitely insufficient to hold all disks. Unfortunately it is not going to get better in the foreseeable future. IIRC there is a DLE parameter to delay, or don't start until. Perhaps you could delay smaller DLEs. Do you mean just assigning the order in which dumps are created (and eventually, dumped to tapes)? So, basically, if we have, 16 FS, and 4 of them are large, then probably delaying 1 big and 3 small FS by couple hours would work? In this case first 4 FS are recorded to the first tape, then next 4 are started (retried to the next tape in the case if "tape is over"), etc.? Do you think it would work? Multiple archive configs, with the same index and tape lists might be used. Perhaps then the large DLEs could be done by themselves or each with just a few smaller DLEs delayed. do not really want to do multiple configs. :( -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
Re: "Will retry" behavior
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:19:29PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > NOTES: > taper: tape weekly1 kb 35900256 fm 14 writing file: No space left on device > taper: retrying zeus: /hmssql.0 on new tape: [writing file: No space left > on device] > taper: tape weekly2 kb 35878464 fm 3 writing file: No space left on device > taper: retrying athena: /F.0 on new tape: [writing file: No space left on > device] > taper: tape weekly3 kb 0 fm 0 [OK] > --- > The result is that athena and zeus are failed. :( I think you're misreading the message. The first line says that amanda failed to write a DLE to tape weekly1 beacuse the tape was full. The second line says that it retried taping DLE zeus:/hmssql.0 on a new tape [the last attempt failed because the first tape was full]. There's nothing there that says that zeus:/hmssql.0 didn't make it on to tape. The same goes for the 3rd and 4th lines w.r.t. athena:/F.0. If those dumps really had failed to tape, there would have been a big NOTICE IN ALL CAPS up at the very top of the report stating that some DLEs had failed to tape.
Re: "Will retry" behavior
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:19:29PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello all, > > We have recently decided to add archival (full) dumps configuration (weekly). > And it is not running as smoothly as we hoped. > > Here is the problem. For the full dumps we use 4 tapes (40G) on a run. > "Short" filesystems are copied over without any problems, problems start with > big filesystems. > Surprizingly, we found out that only 3 tapes were used, but 2 "big" FS failed > to go on tape, because there were "no space left". > > Here is the content of the AMANDA's full dump report: > > here is the copy of the report with failed FS: > > NOTES: > taper: tape weekly1 kb 35900256 fm 14 writing file: No space left on device > taper: retrying zeus: /hmssql.0 on new tape: [writing file: No space left > on device] > taper: tape weekly2 kb 35878464 fm 3 writing file: No space left on device > taper: retrying athena: /F.0 on new tape: [writing file: No space left on > device] > taper: tape weekly3 kb 0 fm 0 [OK] > --- > The result is that athena and zeus are failed. :( > > The question is if I can specify, may be number of attempts, for example, by > changing the dumporder (currently "sSsS", also tried "sssS") or taperalgo > (was "first", and we are going to try "firstfit"). Or, may be it is possible > to control the order in which FS are stored to tapes more accurate? > > Any advice is appreciated. Someone recently posted a patch that delays taping until all dumps are collected in the holding disk. Then the largest fit algorithm should make optimal use of your tapes. But of course you need sufficient holding disk. IIRC there is a DLE parameter to delay, or don't start until. Perhaps you could delay smaller DLEs. Multiple archive configs, with the same index and tape lists might be used. Perhaps then the large DLEs could be done by themselves or each with just a few smaller DLEs delayed. -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road(609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax)
