Re: [BackupPC-users] web interface issues
Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera... its all the same... /var/log/httpd/error_log shows no errors /var/log/BackupPC/LOG shows no errors /etc/hosts is normal /etc/BackupPC/hosts is normal Attached to this message is a screenshot of what my web interface looks like now. I also have this problem, with backuppc 3.1.0-ubuntu6. The interface was working fine before, but I just had to reinstall my OS. Now my screenshot looks similar to yours: although I still have the sidebar at left, the only links in the server section are Status, Host Summary, Documentation, Wiki, Sourceforge. The links for Edit config, Edit hosts, etc. are missing. In the main area for Server Status, I see Currently running jobs and Failures that need attention, but no General server information and no graphs or statistics of file space usage. After my boot hard drive died, I changed from Debian to Ubuntu. I also had to chown -R backuppc:backuppc /var/lib/backuppc, since the backuppc user's user and group IDs had changed. So I guess that this is either a problem with permissions, or a problem in the Ubuntu package. But since index.cgi is suid backuppc, I don't see why there should be a permission problem. Nick, are you running Ubuntu by any chance? Andrew. -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ 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] archive host questions
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 17:42:10 -0600 (CST), Gerald Brandt g...@majentis.com wrote: Hi, I've been trying to automate archive (from iSCSI to USB drive) for offsite backups. Last Fridays ran fine (but took almost 20 hours). This Fridays failed at exactly 1200 minutes in, by a SIGALRM. Is there a time limit on archives? The backups are only 282 GB total (written to USB drive) on a quad core xeon with 1.5 GB RAM. Should it be this slow? I do see a lot of CPU time in WAIT. Can I get more than 1 archive running at a time? That is, I have 20 hosts I want to archive, can I have 4 archive processes running at once, each working with 5 different hosts? Thanks, Gerald I don't know about the hard time limit, but I'm writing about 56GB (compressed) of archives to firewire drives in ~4 hours. I notice compression is the limiting factor in my archives, but I'm willing to take the performance hit to save space as my backups are VERY compressible. On a quad-core CPU, you should basically be seeing 1 core maxed-out per archive process since it will be running the compression program (gzip, bzip, etc) with another one handling the tarcreate process. So, even if it's possible to run more than 1 archive job at a time (I don't know if it is) you won't really be able to run more than 2 on a quad-core box before stalling again on CPU time. What compression setting are you using? As I said - gzip is definitely the bottleneck in my archives. Also, if you can get away from USB and switch to eSATA or fireware you'll see good improvements there. USB is quite a CPU hog too, in my experience. -Josh -- Joshua Malone Systems Administrator (jmal...@nrao.edu)NRAO Charlottesville 434-296-0263 www.cv.nrao.edu 434-249-5699 (mobile) BOFH excuse #426: internet is needed to catch the etherbunny -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ 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] Bare Metal Restore for Microsoft Windows XP
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Michael Stowe wrote: Out of necessity, I had an opportunity to try out restoring a system from scratch with nothing but BackupPC backups. I'm happy to report that the process works, with a few limitations and quirks. I've documented it here: http://www.goodjobsucking.com/?p=219 How does this handle ACL's and file owernship and permissions and the like? Mike Not ... wonderfully. On the plus side, it does seem to handle the read only flag, but it seems to lose the system and hidden flags. As for ownership and permissions, I'm afraid I can't be certain. On the one hand, they *seem* fine, but I'm not sure if that's because they were preserved or if that happens to be the default. I'm not doing anything fancy with either. -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ 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] archive host questions
On 03/07 05:42 , Gerald Brandt wrote:
I've been trying to automate archive (from iSCSI to USB drive) for offsite
backups. Last Fridays ran fine (but took almost 20 hours). This Fridays
failed at exactly 1200 minutes in, by a SIGALRM. Is there a time limit on
archives?
Check this value in config.pl:
$Conf{ClientTimeout} = 72000;
72000 seconds is 1200 minutes.
What Backuppc version are you running? Newer versions should be less
sensitive to this.
In any case, you can raise this value to some other figure; just watch out
for hung backups not dying.
--
Carl Soderstrom
Systems Administrator
Real-Time Enterprises
www.real-time.com
--
Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
___
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] web interface issues
My problems with backuppc are almost completely solved. :)
I ran through /etc/BackupPC/config.pl one more time and found some
misconfiguration.
Take the time to go through that file and get things set right... Even
if you thought you already set it... double check it...
what really helped the most was pulling out all the comments from the
config file which allowed for a much more sane view of option settings.
For CSS and pretty stuff:
$Conf{CgiImageDir} = '/var/www/html/BackupPC';
$Conf{CgiImageDirURL} = '/BackupPC';
$Conf{CgiCSSFile} = 'BackupPC_stnd.css';
To make sure you can see ALL hosts when logging in as admin:
$Conf{CgiNavBarAdminAllHosts} = '1';
And probably the most important ones..
$Conf{BackupPCUser} = 'backuppc';
$Conf{TopDir} = '/data/BackupPC';
$Conf{ConfDir} = '/etc/BackupPC';
$Conf{LogDir} = '/var/log/BackupPC';
$Conf{InstallDir} = '/usr/local/BackupPC';
$Conf{CgiDir} = '/var/www/cgi-bin';
I noticed that when I did a re-configure and install of BackupPC to
re-set my config.pl sanity... I noticed I had to manually populate the
TopDir, InstallDir, etc... even though the install showed my directory
structure properly. Anyway... this is beta release so i'm willing to
accept things like that...
So the web interface works well after getting the config options set
properly.
BTW... my OS is CentOS 5.4 + extra repositories to get all the perl
packages put in nicely.
Next?: in all this reconfiguration, linux hosts are working
marvelously... but my windows+rsyncd hosts stopped working... and now
i'm trying DeltaCopy with the same failures... more to come.
-nick
On 3/8/2010 3:38 AM, Andrew Schulman wrote:
Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera... its all the same...
/var/log/httpd/error_log shows no errors
/var/log/BackupPC/LOG shows no errors
/etc/hosts is normal
/etc/BackupPC/hosts is normal
Attached to this message is a screenshot of what my web interface looks
like now.
I also have this problem, with backuppc 3.1.0-ubuntu6. The interface was
working fine before, but I just had to reinstall my OS. Now my screenshot
looks
similar to yours: although I still have the sidebar at left, the only links
in
the server section are Status, Host Summary, Documentation, Wiki, Sourceforge.
The links for Edit config, Edit hosts, etc. are missing.
In the main area for Server Status, I see Currently running jobs and Failures
that need attention, but no General server information and no graphs or
statistics of file space usage.
After my boot hard drive died, I changed from Debian to Ubuntu. I also had to
chown -R backuppc:backuppc /var/lib/backuppc, since the backuppc user's user
and
group IDs had changed. So I guess that this is either a problem with
permissions, or a problem in the Ubuntu package. But since index.cgi is suid
backuppc, I don't see why there should be a permission problem.
Nick, are you running Ubuntu by any chance?
Andrew.
--
Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
___
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/
--
Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
___
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] web interface issues
So the web interface works well after getting the config options set
properly.
Indeed... thanks for the reminder.
Looking back through my config.pl again as you suggested, I found the options
CgiAdminUserGroup and CgiAdminUsers, helpfully commented that these are the
users who can see the full admin interface. By default $Conf{CgiAdminUserGroup}
= 'backup', and after my OS reinstall I hadn't get added myself back into the
backup group. Once I did that, the rest of the admin interface immediately came
back.
Thanks,
Andrew.
--
Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
___
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] Bare Metal Restore for Microsoft Windows XP
Although I haven't tested it on a bare metal restore, I believe that my code that runs subinacl (and also optionally getfacl) to back up the Windows ACL's should take care of all file ownership, permissions, and ACLs (note that 'getfacl' only captures a subset of the full Windows acl's). Does this happen to include the hidden and system attributes? Of course, beyond that there are other potential NTFS 'features' that might not get restored such as junctions, alternative data streams, etc. -- though typically they are rare in WinXP. In theory, junctions would be recreated by any hard links in the tar file, though I didn't have any reason to try it out. Thanks for the write-up - very helpful! Couple of questions: 1. Once you have installed cygwin, why not just use rsync to restore rather than first creating a tar archive? The main reason is those three hardcoded directory paths -- chiefly C:\WINDOWS, which tends to have a lot of open files that cannot be overwritten. I suppose you could restore those three directories to alternative locations, but in my experimenting, rsync would throw errors and stop working, I'm not sure why. 2. Is the Recovery Console approach necessary? I believe that WinXP Home bundled by a lot of hardware vendors doesn't include it. Couldn't you just restore a bare-bones configuration, boot it up and then proceed as you did It's included on every XP CD that I'm aware of, including Home, but it does need to be either installed (for OEM versions, from the \i386 directory) or booted from (some vendors place it on a recovery or tools partition.) It's necessary in that I know no other way to replace the windows directory. 3. Can you explain the reason for set AllowWildCards = TRUE? Also, more generally, what if anything is the advantage of using the MS shell to rename rather than just using cygwin 'mv'? Does 'ren' do a better job with setting default ACL's. Err... Whoops, that was supposed to read set AllowAllPaths = TRUE not WildCards, which doesn't do a lot. It's required only because otherwise, the Recovery Console won't let you do anything outside \WINDOWS. 4. How are you able to rename for example the WINDOWS directory since it presumably has open files? (or is this the reason and rationale behind using the recovery console) That's exactly the reason behind using the Recovery Console. 5. At what point in the process did you restore the registry or did you just treat them as regular files that are part of your backuppc backup? The registry was backed up as regular files using Volume Shadow Copies, and restored as regular files into the same locations. Switching the \WINDOWS directories switched the registry, as well as all related files. 6. Rather than installing cygwin, using the Recovery console etc., would it be faster/simpler/safer to boot from a Linux cd/dvd (after creating the minimalist system install) and then from linux restore the backuppc shares and rename the directories. Then you could boot back up (hopefully) in Windows and run subinacl if you want to make sure the acls's are all correct. I did try this, and it didn't work -- in my case, because Linux didn't happen to recognize my controller card, or its metadata for the mirror -- and when I tried it on another system, for reasons I'm uncertain of, it threw errors with the tar file for some paths, and choked on symbolic links. Due to the driver issues, I didn't pursue it further. (I had hoped for something relatively simple, like booting to a LiveCD, mounting the drives using ntfs-3g, and simply rsync'ing the latest recovery; I assume this is probably possible with the right tweaking and drivers.) Thanks again for sharing your experiences... -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ 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] Bare Metal Restore for Microsoft Windows XP
Perhaps I missed something in reading this, or my interpretation of a 'bare metal restore' is different from yours. My definition of 'bare metal restore' is taking essentially an image of the current disk, copying it to some media, and then using that image to do a bit-by-bit (sector-by-sector, track-by-track) copy from the backup medium to the target medium. For me, the bit by bit copy is primary for the OS, and possibly including the application programs (word, ppoint, etc.) I don't buy into the M$ organization of files and disks. I partition my hd for OS, Applications, and User Data. I baremetal restore the OS partition and usually the Application partition using Acronis True Image. (True Image is more or less functionally equivalent to Norton Ghost-the enterprise version, not the butched commercial version they have sold in stores since V9 (I think)). I store the images on a NAS that is backed up. I do restores in one of two ways: Use the restore CD that Acronis allows you to make-bareboot the machine, the pull the image from a server, or, netboot the machine, and using an image loader, pull the restore image from the server and put it on the HD. Once the target machine is capable of booting the newly restored image, you can run backup pc (which I gave up on some time ago) or whatever your favorite backup program is, and copy the backed up user data area to the target HD. In your writeup, you talk about reinstalling windows just to get a working copy of the OS if anything’s installed or working, you’re going to wipe it all out anyway so why essentially do the install twice? Your method does allow for the most recent (more or less) snapshot of most of the relevant windoz files but doing an image every so often would essentially do the same thing. In many cases, it may actually be better to install a clean load image of the OS and apps, rather than restore something that may be corrupted/virus infected. In systems where I have this concern, I have an image of a clean xp + backup program restore that I use. It is all done over the net, minimal (if any) manual intervention at the target machine. If need be, I can also remove the target HD, connect it to the NAS, then copy the image directly via the SATA/IDE interface, then put the disk back in the target machine. Sorry, but I don't see how this method is a baremetal restore with a manual step in installing windoz. Your still screwing around with loading via CD a copy of XP, and then cgwin, and then 'manually copying' files in the XP subdirectories. Seems like a lot of places for things to fall through the cracks with file contents not being 'in synch' and I also wonder about registry consistency and backup. It may, however, work fine in your environment. -J On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Michael Stowe mst...@chicago.us.mensa.orgwrote: Out of necessity, I had an opportunity to try out restoring a system from scratch with nothing but BackupPC backups. I'm happy to report that the process works, with a few limitations and quirks. I've documented it here: http://www.goodjobsucking.com/?p=219 -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ 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/ -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev___ 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] Bare Metal Restore for Microsoft Windows XP
Perhaps I missed something in reading this, or my interpretation of a 'bare metal restore' is different from yours. I use the term bare metal in the sense that when the process is started, there is no software or operating system installed. In other words, I'm talking about the system being bare metal, not BackupPC being a bare metal restore imaging program. My definition of 'bare metal restore' is taking essentially an image of the current disk, copying it to some media, and then using that image to do a bit-by-bit (sector-by-sector, track-by-track) copy from the backup medium to the target medium. For me, the bit by bit copy is primary for the OS, and possibly including the application programs (word, ppoint, etc.) I don't buy into the M$ organization of files and disks. I partition my hd for OS, Applications, and User Data. I baremetal restore the OS partition and usually the Application partition using Acronis True Image. (True Image is more or less functionally equivalent to Norton Ghost-the enterprise version, not the butched commercial version they have sold in stores since V9 (I think)). I store the images on a NAS that is backed up. I do restores in one of two ways: Use the restore CD that Acronis allows you to make-bareboot the machine, the pull the image from a server, or, netboot the machine, and using an image loader, pull the restore image from the server and put it on the HD. Once the target machine is capable of booting the newly restored image, you can run backup pc (which I gave up on some time ago) or whatever your favorite backup program is, and copy the backed up user data area to the target HD. I'm not really advocating that people start *planning* on recovering full operating systems using nothing but BackupPC, I'm only suggesting that it's possible if that's all you happen to have. In your writeup, you talk about reinstalling windows just to get a working copy of the OS if anythings installed or working, youre going to wipe it all out anyway so why essentially do the install twice? 1) Because BackupPC doesn't have a LiveCD that does recoveries 2) Because Windows XP has never had a LiveCD 3) Because you still need boot sectors, even if either 1 or 2 were true The technique as outlined does allow you to recover on pretty much any hardware that Microsoft XP supports, which includes raid cards, proprietary metadata and exotic controllers. Note that the entire registry is recovered as well. Your method does allow for the most recent (more or less) snapshot of most of the relevant windoz files but doing an image every so often would essentially do the same thing. To clarify a bit: it allows for 100% of the files to be recovered, but permissions/owners/flags are not fully preserved. In many cases, it may actually be better to install a clean load image of the OS and apps, rather than restore something that may be corrupted/virus infected. I'm also not advocating this recovery method in all cases (obviously.) In systems where I have this concern, I have an image of a clean xp + backup program restore that I use. It is all done over the net, minimal (if any) manual intervention at the target machine. If need be, I can also remove the target HD, connect it to the NAS, then copy the image directly via the SATA/IDE interface, then put the disk back in the target machine. I have something similar, it's just not always the best choice. Note that I've also documented extracting specific registry keys from BackupPC backups in cases where you need to retrieve, for example, an installation key. Sorry, but I don't see how this method is a baremetal restore with a manual step in installing windoz. Your still screwing around with loading via CD a copy of XP, and then cgwin, and then 'manually copying' files in the XP subdirectories. Seems like a lot of places for things to fall through the cracks with file contents not being 'in synch' and I also wonder about registry consistency and backup. As I mentioned, one starts with bare metal -- it's not an unattended bare metal restore. As I documented, there are three directories that need to be renamed (six if you count the ones you're replacing.) The registry is perfectly intact and consistent; naturally this requires one of the rsync/VSS methods that have been outlined here before. As, frankly, is every other file, which includes databases, Outlook, and so on. (It does highlight the need to use rsync/VSS and not just use rsync or SMB.) It may, however, work fine in your environment. -J I expect it to work as documented in anybody's environment, with the quirks and limitations outlined. Whether or not somebody can live with that certainly depends on their environment. As I've mentioned, I don't think I'd plan on this being my only recovery method, but it's worth documenting because it does actually work, and I've been around long enough to know that it's not unusual for
Re: [BackupPC-users] Bare Metal Restore for Microsoft Windows XP
Michael Stowe wrote at about 15:00:06 -0600 on Monday, March 8, 2010: Your method does allow for the most recent (more or less) snapshot of most of the relevant windoz files but doing an image every so often would essentially do the same thing. To clarify a bit: it allows for 100% of the files to be recovered, but permissions/owners/flags are not fully preserved. Technically, it allows for 100% of the files to be recovered that cygwin rsync/tar or smb can see. There are ntfs files that won't be recovered such as NTFS alternate data streams (the data will actually be *lost* since cygwin explicitly doesn't handle such non-POSIX files). Also, junctions won't necessarily be recovered (though in many/most cases at least one copy of the data will be somewhere else on the system) Sorry for the nit-picking ;) -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ 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] Bare Metal Restore for Microsoft Windows XP
Michael Stowe wrote at about 15:00:06 -0600 on Monday, March 8, 2010: Your method does allow for the most recent (more or less) snapshot of most of the relevant windoz files but doing an image every so often would essentially do the same thing. To clarify a bit: it allows for 100% of the files to be recovered, but permissions/owners/flags are not fully preserved. Technically, it allows for 100% of the files to be recovered that cygwin rsync/tar or smb can see. There are ntfs files that won't be recovered such as NTFS alternate data streams (the data will actually be *lost* since cygwin explicitly doesn't handle such non-POSIX files). Also, junctions won't necessarily be recovered (though in many/most cases at least one copy of the data will be somewhere else on the system) Sorry for the nit-picking ;) You're quite correct, and I forgot all about them. In XP, I -think- they contain thumbnails, author and title attributes, and whether files were downloaded from the Internet. A quick check demonstrates that zip files that were downloaded and backed up are no longer marked as such after the recovery, but the files have the exact same md5 sum (indicating that only the main fork is considered.) Of course, they can also be created manually as well, though I'm not aware of any software that makes use of them for legitimate purposes. (I'm aware of a few viruses that use them to hide chunks of code.) I guess it's not a big deal for my XP systems, but I suspect this could be a big problem... I'm not sure if Microsoft has increased the use of ADS for Vista and Windows 7. I did make a quick test for junctions, and they -appear- to work, but this might just be reflexive since I used a cygwin hard link to create the junction in the first place. -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ 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] Backups no longer run automatically
Chris Baker wrote: I noticed this morning that my backups had not run over the weekend. They are supposed to be automated and run every day. A full backup runs weekly. Incremental backups run every night or day. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday backups were all missed. This was for every single computer. I'm naturally wondering what changed. I have run the backups manually. However, this is definitely not a good solution. Backups run manually just fine. I rebooted my server, and this did not fix the problem. The only change that comes to mind is that I did one new PC to the backup server last Friday. I have not changed any other setting. Some backups are scheduled to run only at night. Other backups can run anytime. Usually this means that your pool filesystem is 95% full (or wherever you've configured it to not start backups). -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com -- Download Intel#174; Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev ___ 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/
