Re: [BackupPC-users] Disk space used far higher than reported pool size

2013-11-01 Thread Les Mikesell
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM, wrote: > > This is probably not his *primary* issue since the pool is (only) > ~3T. But when he started talking about file read errors, I was > concerned that if the pool file reads were being truncated, then there > likely would be pool duplicates since the byte-b

Re: [BackupPC-users] Disk space used far higher than reported pool size

2013-11-01 Thread backuppc
Holger Parplies wrote at about 18:57:05 +0100 on Friday, November 1, 2013: > 3.) finding "unnecessary duplicates" can have a normal explanation: if at > some > point you had more than 31999 copies of one file (content) in your > backups, BackupPC would have created a pool duplicate. So

Re: [BackupPC-users] Disk space used far higher than reported pool size

2013-11-01 Thread backuppc
Holger Parplies wrote at about 18:57:05 +0100 on Friday, November 1, 2013: > Hi, > > I get some diagnostics when reading this with 'use warnings "wrong_numbers"' > ... > > backu...@kosowsky.org wrote on 2013-11-01 12:18:17 -0400 [Re: > [BackupPC-users] Disk space used far higher than rep

Re: [BackupPC-users] Disk space used far higher than reported pool size

2013-11-01 Thread Holger Parplies
Hi, I get some diagnostics when reading this with 'use warnings "wrong_numbers"' ... backu...@kosowsky.org wrote on 2013-11-01 12:18:17 -0400 [Re: [BackupPC-users] Disk space used far higher than reported pool?size]: > Craig O'Brien wrote at about 10:11:07 -0400 on Friday, November 1, 2013: > >

Re: [BackupPC-users] Disk space used far higher than reported pool size

2013-11-01 Thread backuppc
Craig O'Brien wrote at about 10:11:07 -0400 on Friday, November 1, 2013: > >And this would explain why the elements are not being linked properly to > the pool -- though I would have thought the more likely result would be a > duplicate pool entry than an unlinked pool entry... > > >It might

Re: [BackupPC-users] Disk space used far higher than reported pool size

2013-11-01 Thread Timothy J Massey
"Craig O'Brien" wrote on 11/01/2013 09:48:23 AM: > > This error shows BackupPC_dump segfault, and pointing to libperl.so > > How do you install your BackupPC ? From source or from RPM? > > I did a yum install backuppc, which got it from epel That's how I do it. > > That tells you it was unmoun

Re: [BackupPC-users] Disk space used far higher than reported pool size

2013-11-01 Thread Les Mikesell
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Craig O'Brien wrote: >> This error shows BackupPC_dump segfault, and pointing to libperl.so >> How do you install your BackupPC ? From source or from RPM? > > I did a yum install backuppc, which got it from epel Do you see any other segfaults in your logs (not nece

Re: [BackupPC-users] Disk space used far higher than reported pool size

2013-11-01 Thread Craig O'Brien
>And this would explain why the elements are not being linked properly to the pool -- though I would have thought the more likely result would be a duplicate pool entry than an unlinked pool entry... >It might be interesting to look for pool chains with the same (uncompressed) content and with lin

Re: [BackupPC-users] Disk space used far higher than reported pool size

2013-11-01 Thread Craig O'Brien
> This error shows BackupPC_dump segfault, and pointing to libperl.so > How do you install your BackupPC ? From source or from RPM? I did a yum install backuppc, which got it from epel > That tells you it was unmounted cleanly last time, not that everything checks out OK. > Try it with the -f opt

Re: [BackupPC-users] BUG & SOLUTION: Can't call method "getStats" on

2013-11-01 Thread Rob Sheldon
On 2013-10-31 18:53, backu...@kosowsky.org wrote: > backu...@kosowsky.org wrote at about 21:08:33 -0400 on Thursday, > October 31, 2013: > > From: Rob Sheldon -2013-11-01 00:13 > > > Just ran into the bug described back in 2011 by Jeffrey > > > > Has the simple bug code fix that I suggeste