Re: [BackupPC-users] Cant Backup Mount Point

By default, the RsyncArgs for BPC4 includes --one-file-system, which tells it not to descend into mounted filesystems.  To include other filesystems in your backups, you can either add a second "share" to the machine for /var/files so that it's explicitly backed up, or you can remove

[BackupPC-users] Cant Backup Mount Point

Hi, i use BPC 4.4.0 with rsync for a linux machine. I mounted via fstab a second sdc1 drive at /var/files/, but this folder isnt backuped. I see in the backup foldertree /var/files but its empty. I have no exclusion for /var/files, or /var/. I assume there is a build in setting for non root

Re: [BackupPC-users] ssh+rsync and known_hosts

On 7/23/2023 11:42 AM, backu...@kosowsky.org wrote: While allowing root permissions to rsync is a pretty big security hole itself, it is a little less drastic than simply logging in as root. On my more sensitive machines, I run rsyncd in read-only mode with exclusions. I do wish rsyncd

Re: [BackupPC-users] ssh+rsync and known_hosts

Paul Fox wrote at about 12:46:18 -0400 on Saturday, July 22, 2023: > Kenneth Porter wrote: > > I'm setting up some Raspberry Pis and I set up BackupPC to back them up > > using ssh+rsync. I installed the key in ~backuppc/.ssh/authorized_keys > but > > the initial backup was still

Re: [BackupPC-users] ssh+rsync and known_hosts

--On Saturday, July 22, 2023 1:46 PM -0400 Paul Fox wrote: You should be trying to manually ssh from the backuppc account You'd think, but that's the last thing I tried, not the first. I was trying to diagnose the problem by running BackupPC_dump (as user backuppc) and trying to debug

Re: [BackupPC-users] A Perl error?

Hi, I don't usually wade in to discussions like these, but as I understand perl fairly well, I feel the need to point out that you are on the wrong track G.W.Haywood.The error message does not refer to line 742 of config.pl, but to that of configure.pl, presumably the script which reads

Re: [BackupPC-users] A Perl error?

Hi there, On Sun, 23 Jul 2023, Jan Stransky wrote: I started to notice following error. Does any one have any ideas? It seems to be more related to configure.pl genrerator, rather than the actual configuration. Cheers, Jan Can't use string ("1") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in use at

Re: [BackupPC-users] A Perl error?

Hi there, On Sun, 23 Jul 2023, Peter Major wrote: I don't usually wade in to discussions like these, but as I understand perl fairly well, I feel the need to point out that you are on the wrong track G.W.Haywood.The error message does not refer to line 742 of config.pl, but to that of

Re: [BackupPC-users] A Perl error?

Hi there, On Sun, 23 Jul 2023, Jan Stransky wrote: I started to notice following error. ... Can't use string ("1") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in use at configure.pl line 742. ... Looks like you broke it. Please let us see what you have around line 742 of configure.pl. In the

[BackupPC-users] A Perl error?

Hi, I started to notice following error. Does any one have any ideas? It seems to be more related to configure.pl genrerator, rather than the actual configuration. Cheers, Jan Can't use string ("1") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in use at configure.pl line 742.

Re: [BackupPC-users] ssh+rsync and known_hosts

Kenneth Porter wrote: > I'm setting up some Raspberry Pis and I set up BackupPC to back them up > using ssh+rsync. I installed the key in ~backuppc/.ssh/authorized_keys but > the initial backup was still failing. Unless things have changed (and they might have, but I still do it this way),

[BackupPC-users] ssh+rsync and known_hosts

I'm setting up some Raspberry Pis and I set up BackupPC to back them up using ssh+rsync. I installed the key in ~backuppc/.ssh/authorized_keys but the initial backup was still failing. So I tried manually ssh'ing into the Pi and discovered I was hitting the question to add the Pi to

Re: [BackupPC-users] Backups failing, file contents printed to screen

I suggest trying to recreate this by running 'rsync' manually using as similar options to backuppc as possible. You can see the options by running 'ps' while backuppc is running. Also try to use the same rsync version as backuppc is using. This way you should be able to (mostly) rule out a

Re: [BackupPC-users] Backups failing, file contents printed to screen

Hi there, On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, David Raison wrote: On 19/07/2023 13:25, David Raison wrote: I guess I'll try to pipe the process' output to files so that I may be able to spot when and/or where exactly the switch from listing to dumping happens ... ... where it started dumping content during

Re: [BackupPC-users] Backups failing, file contents printed to screen

Hi, On 20/07/2023 10:29, Jamie Burchell wrote: Could it be an issue with running out of memory? Do the system logs have anything interesting in them around the time it goes haywire? No, I went through all of the system logs and in-memory logs for yesterday and today and there is nothing

Re: [BackupPC-users] Backups failing, file contents printed to screen

Could it be an issue with running out of memory? Do the system logs have anything interesting in them around the time it goes haywire? *From:* David Raison *Sent:* Thursday, July 20, 2023 9:05 AM *To:* backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net *Subject:* Re: [BackupPC-users] Backups failing, file

Re: [BackupPC-users] Backups failing, file contents printed to screen

Hi again, On 19/07/2023 13:25, David Raison wrote: I guess I'll try to pipe the process' output to files so that I may > be able to spot when and/or where exactly the switch from listing to > dumping happens, but any ideas from your side are more than welcome. When it's dumping contents to

[BackupPC-users] Backups failing, file contents printed to screen

Hi backuppc users, I have seen this before, and then it was usually rsync trying to sync files that were currently being written (and not part of excluded files when they should be), but this time I'm a bit at a loss and hoping for input from the community. On this particular host that is

Re: [BackupPC-users] After upgrade from Debian Buster to Bookworm backuppc service will not start

I'm wondering if the Debian package has any patches that make sense to apply upstream. It might have corrected some coding bugs that would cause those warnings with a newer version of Perl. Someone more familiar than I with Debian packaging might want to check it out:

Re: [BackupPC-users] After upgrade from Debian Buster to Bookworm backuppc service will not start

On08 July 2023 16:07 Norman J. Goldstein wrote: > Glad to hear you are all fixed up! Are you still getting these messages? If > so, how > do you initiate the command you are running, and in which log file do the > messages > occur, please? > No, I'm no longer receiving those messages. I

Re: [BackupPC-users] After upgrade from Debian Buster to Bookworm backuppc service will not start

Glad to hear you are all fixed up!  Are you still getting these messages?  If so, how do you initiate the command you are running, and in which log file do the messages occur, please? On 2023-07-08 07:53, spindles seven wrote: On 08 July 2023 15:22 Norman J. Goldstein wrote: I am no perl

Re: [BackupPC-users] After upgrade from Debian Buster to Bookworm backuppc service will not start

On 08 July 2023 15:22 Norman J. Goldstein wrote: > I am no perl expert, but here is my take on the messages in the logs. If the > messages are all warnings, I don't think that would be why BPC is exiting. > Nonetheless, here is how I think the messages can be eliminated, but without > having >

Re: [BackupPC-users] After upgrade from Debian Buster to Bookworm backuppc service will not start

I am no perl expert, but here is my take on the messages in the logs.  If the messages are all warnings, I don't think that would be why BPC is exiting. Nonetheless, here is how I think the messages can be eliminated, but without having tested the suggestions (sorry!). It looks like removing

[BackupPC-users] After upgrade from Debian Buster to Bookworm backuppc service will not start

I upgraded the Debian Buster to Bookworm and the backuppc.service now will no longer start. In the logs I see: 2023-07-08 12:17:05 Reading hosts file 2023-07-08 12:17:05 BackupPC 4.4.0 (Perl v5.32.1) started, pid 93 2023-07-08 12:17:05 Running BackupPC_Admin_SCGI (pid=184) 2023-07-08 12:17:05

Re: [BackupPC-users] Incorrect number of hosts "skipped"?

Ah, OK! Makes sense. Thanks. *From:* Dave Sherohman via BackupPC-users < backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> *Sent:* Monday, July 3, 2023 11:11 AM *To:* backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net *Cc:* Dave Sherohman *Subject:* Re: [BackupPC-users] Incorrect number of hosts "skipped"? 111 = 37

Re: [BackupPC-users] Incorrect number of hosts "skipped"?

111 = 37 * 3 Presumably it made three attempts to back up each host, but all three attempts (per host, 111 attempts total) were skipped due to insufficient space to store the backups.  And, for simplicity, the code just counted the attempts without attempting to deduplicate multiple attempts

[BackupPC-users] Incorrect number of hosts "skipped"?

I received an email this morning to tell me: “Yesterday 111 hosts were skipped because the file system containing /var/lib/BackupPC/ was too full.” Aside from the obvious issue, it says 111 hosts when I only have 37? “There are 37 hosts that have been backed up, for a total of:” Is

Re: [BackupPC-users] Different strategies on same host

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 04:18 Dave Sherohman via BackupPC-users < backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote > *I* don't do it, simply because there's little practical difference >> between rsync'ing directories that don't change and not rsync'ing them. >> > > Just to give reason *I* use it: > -

Re: [BackupPC-users] Different strategies on same host

On 6/29/23 15:11, Guillermo Rozas wrote: *I* don't do it, simply because there's little practical difference between rsync'ing directories that don't change and not rsync'ing them. Just to give reason *I* use it: - the cost/benefit of doing full backups for different folders is

[BackupPC-users] Need help for BackupPC and windows client

Hi Patrick, Two suggestions: 1. check rsync log file on your windows client, it might have more information on authentication failure. 2. your rsync config file on the client side might have 'hosts allow' directive limiting IPs/hosts that can initiate the connection. regards /aleks > I'm using

Re: [BackupPC-users] Different strategies on same host

Thanks for the feedback and pointer to ClientNameAlias.  This saves me creating an alias at the OS level. Here is the doc page: https://backuppc.sourceforge.net/faq/BackupPC.html#_conf_clientnamealias_ On 2023-06-29 06:05, Guillermo Rozas wrote: Hi, what I do is to have two different hosts

Re: [BackupPC-users] Different strategies on same host

> > *I* don't do it, simply because there's little practical difference > between rsync'ing directories that don't change and not rsync'ing them. > Just to give reason *I* use it: - retention policy for different folders is different (I keep my photos backup much longer than my system

Re: [BackupPC-users] Different strategies on same host

Hi, what I do is to have two different hosts in the server configuration (myPC and myPC_photo), and both hosts have defined "ClientNameAlias" to the same real host name address (IP or host name, but help says dhcp must be disabled for the host). That way I can define two completely separated

Re: [BackupPC-users] Different strategies on same host

On 2023-06-28 15:49, Norman J. Goldstein wrote: I want to have a different strategy for backing up photos than for backing up documents that I am editing.  Basically, it would be a rare event to do a full backup of my photos.   I assume that the host name, say myPC, must correspond to myPC.pl

[BackupPC-users] Different strategies on same host

I want to have a different strategy for backing up photos than for backing up documents that I am editing.  Basically, it would be a rare event to do a full backup of my photos.   I assume that the host name, say myPC, must correspond to myPC.pl in the pc folder. Does it sound reasonable to

Re: [BackupPC-users] Need help for BackupPC and windows client

On 2023-06-22 06:31, Patrick Begou wrote: Hi, I'm using BackupPC for a while (my version is a little bit old: 3.3.1 ) with Linux clients. I'm trying to setup a windows client (the only windows client I have, all others are Linux). On this windows laptop there is a firewall closing all the

[BackupPC-users] Need help for BackupPC and windows client

Hi, I'm using BackupPC for a while (my version is a little bit old: 3.3.1 ) with Linux clients. I'm trying to setup a windows client (the only windows client I have, all others are Linux). On this windows laptop there is a firewall closing all the ports and I have opened: - icmp echo for

Re: [BackupPC-users] How to backup a single file using rsyncd

I just mention the files by name, and they get backed up e.g. /etc/fstab This is in the same list having folders e.g. /etc/Backuppc so, do you have more clues regarding the failed backup of the files?  What is in the transfer log (3rd column of the "Xfer Error Summary" table. On 2023-05-25

Re: [BackupPC-users] How to backup a single file using rsyncd

I just decided to backup the entire /etc directory for sake of time spent trying to figure out how to backup only select files. -Ed From: Ed Burgstaler via BackupPC-users Sent: May 25, 2023 1:10 PM To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: Ed Burgstaler Subject: [BackupPC-users] How

[BackupPC-users] How to backup a single file using rsyncd

I have folders backing up fine but I want to back up single files like /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow and a few others. I know it must be something really simple I’m missing in the config of rsyncsharename section of the per pc config file. Thanks

Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC 4.4.0 on a RaspberryPi4 with rsync failure

On 5/22/2023 7:48 AM, G.W. Haywood via BackupPC-users wrote: There have been issues with differing versions of rsync, if you search the list archives you'll find plenty of mention of that - you'll even see the exact same error message which you posted. I concur. I've seen similar issues with

Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC 4.4.0 on a RaspberryPi4 with rsync failure

Hi there, On Mon, 22 May 2023, Gregory P. Ennis wrote: I recently upgraded my raspberrypi4 to a 64 bit os from 32 which had an upgrade of BackupPc from 3 to 4. This created an enhancement going from the 5 kernel to 6. BackupPC 3 on the 5 kernel worked perfectly, but so far BackupPC 4 fails

[BackupPC-users] BackupPC 4.4.0 on a RaspberryPi4 with rsync failure

Everyone, I recently upgraded my raspberrypi4 to a 64 bit os from 32 which had an upgrade of BackupPc from 3 to 4. This created an enhancement going from the 5 kernel to 6. BackupPC 3 on the 5 kernel worked perfectly, but so far BackupPC 4 fails to wprk on the 6 kernel. So far I have not been

Re: [BackupPC-users] rsync_bpc on thecommand line "works" but same rsync_bpc executed via apache fails

Hi there, On Wed, 17 May 2023, Bob Tanner wrote: ... backuppc-4.4.0-5ubuntu2 Ubuntu 22.04.2 LTS I issue a ?Start Full Backup? via the web UI and the backup errors out, Errors from the web UI states ... testrs...@test.lab.real-time.com: Permission denied (publickey,password). <==

[BackupPC-users] rsync_bpc on thecommand line "works" but same rsync_bpc executed via apache fails

backuppc-4.4.0-5ubuntu2 Ubuntu 22.04.2 LTS I issue a “Start Full Backup” via the web UI and the backup errors out, Errors from the web UI states XferLOG file /var/lib/backuppc/pc/test.lab.real-time.com/XferLOG.0.z created 2023-05-16 18:39:36 Backup prep: type = full, case = 1, inPlace = 1,

Re: [BackupPC-users] $Conf{RsyncBackupPCPath} is set to , which isn't a valid executable

Hi, I am sure I have $Conf{RsyncBackupPCPath} set properly # grep RsyncBackupPCPath * config.pl:$Conf{RsyncBackupPCPath} = "/usr/libexec/backuppc-rsync/rsync_bpc"; config.pl:RsyncBackupPCPath => 0, # file /usr/libexec/backuppc-rsync/rsync_bpc /usr/libexec/backuppc-rsync/rsync_bpc:

[BackupPC-users] $Conf{RsyncBackupPCPath} is set to , which isn't a valid executable

Upgraded to backuppc v4.4 and any backup started via the web interface fails and this is the error Contents of file /var/lib/backuppc/pc/aliases.real-time.com/LOG.052023, modified 2023-05-11 18:36:56 2023-05-07 16:00:01 Created directory /var/lib/backuppc/pc/aliases.real-time.com/refCnt

Re: [BackupPC-users] FullKeepCnt?

Would it be an idea to transfer such examples to the wiki? Cheers, Raoul --  DI (FH) Raoul Bhatia MSc E-Mail. ra...@bhatia.at Tel. +43 699 10132530 From: Christopher Diekkamp Sent: Monday, 8 May 2023 11:23 To: backuppc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re:

Re: [BackupPC-users] FullKeepCnt?

Hi Christian, it's some time ago I wrapped my head around this, but if I'm not mistaken, it should be like this. Am 27.03.2023 um 07:55 schrieb Christian Völker: Hi all, just as an addition: Will there be a difference between the following config-items? FullKeepCnt = [4,0,1,1] vs.

Re: [BackupPC-users] files removed

On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 11:31 AM G.W. Haywood wrote: > On Fri, 5 May 2023, gregrwm wrote: > > if so, umm..!! heck, isn't that one of the times when backups are sorely > > wanted? when the original flakes or fades and no longer has a valid copy > > of the file? > > I think you may be

Re: [BackupPC-users] files removed

Hi there, On Fri, 5 May 2023, gregrwm wrote: i'm curious ... Me too. :) I'm replying largely because nobody else did so far, not because I think I have any brilliant insights or anything. Sorry. full backup started for directory /; updating partial #1 This is what I'm curious about.

[BackupPC-users] files removed

hi folks, i'm curious about the "file removed" messages below, they're from running "sudo -ubackuppc /u*/s*/b*/b*/*_dump -v $c" [ubuntu focal backuppc 3.3.2-3] do they mean the backed-up copies were removed? because they no longer match the "original" file? if so, umm..!! heck, isn't that one

[BackupPC-users] Full backup number got reset?

Hi, I realized that I have one host where I have a backup history going back only 47 days while on all other hosts I have roughly 2 years. I am using the following settings for all hosts: FullPeriod=6.97 FillCycle=0 FullKeepCnt=[3, 0, 3, 0, 6] FullKeepCntMin=3 FullAgeMax=720 That

Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC (tar) has started failing

On 4/5/23 10:57, G.W. Haywood via BackupPC-users wrote: Hi there, On Wed, 5 Apr 2023, Mark Murawski wrote: ... $Conf{BackupFilesOnly} = {   '/' => [     'bin',     'apps',     'opt',     'lib32',     'intellasoft',     'etc',     'manageServ',     'boot',     'var',     'lib',     'lib64',   

Re: [BackupPC-users] BackupPC (tar) has started failing

Hi there, On Wed, 5 Apr 2023, Mark Murawski wrote: ... $Conf{BackupFilesOnly} = { '/' => [ 'bin', 'apps', 'opt', 'lib32', 'intellasoft', 'etc', 'manageServ', 'boot', 'var', 'lib', 'lib64', 'usr', 'home', 'sbin' ] };

[BackupPC-users] BackupPC (tar) has started failing

XferLOG.bad.z Running: /usr/bin/env LC_ALL=C /usr/bin/sudo /bin/tar -c -v -f - -C / --totals --exclude=sys --exclude=home/backuppc --exclude=proc --exclude=var/lib/postgres --exclude=var/log ./bin ./apps ./opt ./lib32 ./intellasoft ./etc ./manageServ ./boot ./var ./lib ./lib64 ./usr ./home

Re: [BackupPC-users] FullKeepCnt?

Hi all, just as an addition: Will there be a difference between the following config-items? FullKeepCnt = [4,0,1,1] vs. FullKeepCnt = [3,0,1,1] and FullKeepCnt = [3,0,1,1] vs. FullKeepCnt = [3,0,2] ? Thanks in advance! /Christian Am 26.03.23 um 11:01 schrieb Christian Völker: Hi all, I

[BackupPC-users] FullKeepCnt?

Hi all, I am using BackupPC4 (no v3 pool). Settings are: FullKeepCnt = [4,0,1,1] FillCycle = 0 FullPeriod = 6.97 Am I right BackupPC will keep 4 filled/full backups from every week, another one from 1 months an one from two months? I am a little bit unsure here, even though the documentation

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

Either there is some rare edge or condition in BackupPC causing de-duplication to fail (which I think is unlikely) or perhaps at some point your backuppc instance crashed in the middle of saving one of the above pool files in some indeterminate state that caused it to create a duplicate in the

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

Giannis Economou wrote at about 23:18:25 +0200 on Thursday, March 16, 2023: > Thank you for the extra useful "find" command. > I see from your command: those extra collisions are not 32chars files > but 35 due to the "ext" (extension), but without _ separator. > > Based on that, I did my

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

Thank you for the extra useful "find" command. I see from your command: those extra collisions are not 32chars files but 35 due to the "ext" (extension), but without _ separator. Based on that, I did my investigation. Some findings below... A. First BackupPC server: This is a backup server

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

Giannis Economou wrote at about 19:12:56 +0200 on Thursday, March 16, 2023: > In my v4 pool are collisions still generating _0, _1, _2 etc filenames > in the pool/ ? According to the code in Lib.pm, it appears that unlike v3, there is no underscore -- it's just an (unsigned) long added to the

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

Rob Sheldon wrote at about 09:56:51 -0700 on Thursday, March 16, 2023: > The mailing list tyrant's reply however made me realize I don't actually > need to be chasing this down just right now, so I won't be following up on > this further. > I was dormant on this list for quite a few years

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

In my v4 pool are collisions still generating _0, _1, _2 etc filenames in the pool/ ? (as in the example from the docs mentions:     __TOPDIR__/pool/1/2/3/123456789abcdef0     __TOPDIR__/pool/1/2/3/123456789abcdef0_0     __TOPDIR__/pool/1/2/3/123456789abcdef0_1 ) I am using

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, at 8:59 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 10:53 AM Rob Sheldon wrote: > > > > Why are you assuming this is "randomly" happening? Any time an identical > > file exists in more than one place on the client filesystem, there will be > > a collision. This is

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

Rob Sheldon wrote at about 08:31:17 -0700 on Thursday, March 16, 2023: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, at 7:43 AM, backu...@kosowsky.org wrote: > > > > Rob Sheldon wrote at about 23:54:51 -0700 on Wednesday, March 15, 2023: > > > There is no reason to be concerned. This is normal. > > > > It

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 10:53 AM Rob Sheldon wrote: > > Why are you assuming this is "randomly" happening? Any time an identical file > exists in more than one place on the client filesystem, there will be a > collision. This is common in lots of cases. Desktop environments frequently > have

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023, at 7:43 AM, backu...@kosowsky.org wrote: > > Rob Sheldon wrote at about 23:54:51 -0700 on Wednesday, March 15, 2023: > > There is no reason to be concerned. This is normal. > > It *should* be extremely, once-in-a-blue-moon, rare to randomly have an > md5sum collision -- as

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

Rob Sheldon wrote at about 23:54:51 -0700 on Wednesday, March 15, 2023: > There is no reason to be concerned. This is normal. Not really! The OP claimed he is using v4 which uses full file md5sum checksums as the file name hash. It *should* be extremely, once-in-a-blue-moon, rare to randomly

Re: [BackupPC-users] Files in backup with wrong uid/gid

Good detective work and glad you figured it out! Looking back, it seems like v3 didn't require '--super'. Presumably, since v3 used a custom/hacked Perl version of rsync on the server side, Craig had coded the functionality of '--super' into the Perl code. David Heap via BackupPC-users wrote at

Re: [BackupPC-users] Files in backup with wrong uid/gid

Resolved, thank you to everyone who replied. > What transport protocol are you using? > Can you reproduce this when the file is moved elsewhere? These pointed me in the right direction, thanks - I copied the folder to a new location and all the files were backed up as root:root. Having a

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

All is clear now. Thank you so much for your detailed reply. On 16/3/2023 8:54 π.μ., Rob Sheldon wrote: There is no reason to be concerned. This is normal. Searching for "backuppc pool hashing chain" finds https://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/message/20671583/ for example. The

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

There is no reason to be concerned. This is normal. Searching for "backuppc pool hashing chain" finds https://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/mailman/message/20671583/ for example. The documentation could perhaps be more specific about this, but BackupPC "chains" hash collisions, so no data is lost

Re: [BackupPC-users] Mailing list etiquette

I have sent a more detailed follow up after my original question, to ask about my concerns (for those hash collisions). As I wrote, this status message (visible on every backupPC installation in the "status page") is not discussed in the documentation. I read in the github wiki: /> In V4+,

[BackupPC-users] Mailing list etiquette

On 3/14/2023 3:25 PM, John wrote: That's the sort of attitude that puts genuine people off asking for help on mailing lists. Rather than posting a cutting reply, why not simply ask for a little more information if that's what's needed? Please try to remember that English is not everyone's

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

That's the sort of attitude that puts genuine people off asking for help on mailing lists. Rather than posting a cutting reply, why not simply ask for a little more information if that's what's needed? Please try to remember that English is not everyone's first language and at the end of the

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

The message appears in "Server Information" section, inside server status, in the web interface of BackupPC (page "BackupPC Server Status"). Both servers are running BackupPC version 4.4.0. 1st server says:  "Pool hashing gives 165 repeated files with longest chain 1" 2nd server says:  "Pool

Re: [BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

Can you please invest some minimal effort in asking a specific question and supplying relevant data? Not just a random line pulled presumably from a log file or web page and saying "I guess it's a problem". Giannis Economou wrote at about 15:59:27 +0200 on Tuesday, March 14, 2023: > Hello, >

Re: [BackupPC-users] Files in backup with wrong uid/gid

Yes - this is exactly what I suggest in my response a few days ago. Without any other info or reason to assume a bug in BackupPC, a potential problem would be due to a non-standard/buggy/inconsisten/incompatible file system type such as Fuse File System. I sometimes get issues backing up my

Re: [BackupPC-users] Files in backup with wrong uid/gid

Hi there, Sorry, wrote this last week and didn't manage to hit 'send'. :/ On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, David Heap wrote: I'm seeing an issue where the uid/gid of two files inside the backup are incorrectly root instead of the correct owner (openldap in this case). Files on the server: -rw--- 1

[BackupPC-users] Pool hashing gives XXX repeated files with longest chain 1

Hello, running 2 backuppc servers and: * on 1st one we get: Pool hashing gives 165 repeated files with longest chain 1 * on 2nd one we get: Pool hashing gives 5 repeated files with longest chain 1 I guess this might be a problem? If yes, what can we do about this? Thank you.

Re: [BackupPC-users] Files in backup with wrong uid/gid

Knowing the code reasonably well, it's hard to imagine why only those couple of files would be messed up. Is there any possibility that the client is returning the wrong owner/permissions? What transport protocol are you using? What is the underlying filesystem? What if anything is different

Re: [BackupPC-users] Files in backup with wrong uid/gid

Hi, I'm not sure that's correct - files with the same size don't necessarily have the same content. These are logs that are rotated when they hit a certain size and this is confirmed by the MD5s (used for deduplication) differing as seen in the output from BackupPC_ls. Regardless, the content

Re: [BackupPC-users] Files in backup with wrong uid/gid

On 3/9/23 07:57, David Heap wrote: Hi, I’m seeing an issue where the uid/gid of two files inside the backup are incorrectly root instead of the correct owner (openldap in this case). Files on the server: -rw--- 1 openldap openldap 10485759 Apr  8  2022 log.04 -rw--- 1

[BackupPC-users] BUG: Backup numbers increase for failed backups

Revisiting this old reported bug. Sometimes when a backup fails, the backup number of the *last* successful backup increases sequentially each time the backup fails. For example, in a backup of Google Drive (mounted locally on my Linux system), I originally had: Backup# Type Filled

[BackupPC-users] Files in backup with wrong uid/gid

Hi, I'm seeing an issue where the uid/gid of two files inside the backup are incorrectly root instead of the correct owner (openldap in this case). Files on the server: -rw--- 1 openldap openldap 10485759 Apr 8 2022 log.04 -rw--- 1 openldap openldap 10485759 Sep 21 14:16

[BackupPC-users] BUG-ish in 'sub new' in Lib.pm

The following code seems to imply that one can (optionally) set TopDir, InstallDir, and ConfDir when initializing a new bpc class sub new { my $class = shift; my($topDir, $installDir, $confDir, $noUserCheck) = @_; However, this doesn't really seem to have any

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

Hi, I am indeed claiming that I think files are not being deleted and I wish I was able to disprove this and identify an alternative reason for the behavior I'm seeing. However, I haven't read of a single way to allow me to do this so far. My hypothesis is, that it is unlikely that

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

Hi, my gut tells me there is a little bit of misunderstanding. I am really glad for BackupPC to being rock stable, indeed. And I do not fault BackupPC for having parts of my pool somehow corrupted because I really had some hardware issues the last couple of weeks so I guess this behaviour

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

Yes - but no one has come remotely close to showing that there is a problem with BackupPC pooling and de-duping itself. Unfortunately, it seems like not a single specific file was ever identified as being either unnecessarily duplicated or mistakenly not deleted from the pool. It's all great to

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

"G.W. Haywood via BackupPC-users" wrote: > Hi there, > > On Fri, 24 Feb 2023, Paul Fox wrote: > > > ... > > Nothing makes me nervous like having someone tell me that my backup > > strategy, which has been rock solid for almost 20 years, might now > > have problems. ... > > In this

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

I agree. However, I run BackupPC_fsck and BackupPC_refCountUpdate multiple times and none of these tools fixed the issues. In the end I had to use BackupPC_delete to remove the faults. Which is, somehow, a non reliable backup Just my thoughts. Christian Am 24.02.23 um 14:08 schrieb

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

Hi there, On Fri, 24 Feb 2023, Paul Fox wrote: ... Nothing makes me nervous like having someone tell me that my backup strategy, which has been rock solid for almost 20 years, might now have problems. ... In this thread I don't think I've seen anything to cause that kind of concern for

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

Hi, On 24/02/2023 13:05, Paul Fox wrote: David -- have you perhaps tried those tools as well? I have not yet had a chance to run them, nor follow Christian's other suggestions. I am planning on doing so though at the first chance I get. Regards, David -- *TenTwentyFour S.à r.l.*

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

Christian Völker wrote: > Hi all, > > meanwhile I gave up on using my script for checking the pool- I guess it > was totally wrong. > > However, I used BackuPC_fsck and BackupPC_refCountUpdate to check the > pool and they gave me loads of errors. In particular on two hosts. All >

[BackupPC-users] Help Understanding Storage Layout

Hi all! (might this be better posted in the devel mailing list? I am not a developer...) The last couple of days  we are discussing a lot regarding storing/ removing backups. Looks like my first attempt with my script was completely wrong. So I am trying to understand the structure BackuPC

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

My bad, I'll watch out from now on. On 21/02/2023 15:22, Paul Fox wrote: Is it really necessary to be sending multiple identical ADVERTISEMENTS to the list? -- *TenTwentyFour S.à r.l.* www.tentwentyfour.lu *T*: +352 20 211 1024 *F*: +352 20 211 1023 1 place de

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

Is it really necessary to be sending multiple identical ADVERTISEMENTS to the list? > > Non-text parts of message 423: > 1.1.2) image 191K"0psDl4r0am0Jp1EI.png" > 1.1.3) image 191K"FtUSQ9AjaqTx9Zg4.png" > 1.1.4) image 191K"0MorVgYDTsoDwC1N.png" >

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

"G.W. Haywood via BackupPC-users" wrote: > I wonder if you install the (read-only) FUSE filesystem 'backuppcfs' > it will help you to diagnose this further? As you seem to be having > trouble with a small number of large files it shouldn't be difficult > to isolate the problem areas and maybe

Re: [BackupPC-users] cpool not shrinking on deleting hosts or changing schedule (Github #427)

Hi there, On Tue, 21 Feb 2023, David Raisonwrote: So since reducing the IncrKeepCnt for some hosts, I have actually lost another 6Gb in disk storage over the past night. ... results seem to indicate that I have no orphaned files: ... I have made sure that my $Conf{RsyncArgs} are the defaults

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >