Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*If\s+most\s+recent\s+backup\s+is\s+not\s+level\s+0\,\s+recovery\s+fails\s+to\s+bring\s+back\s+all\s+files\s+when\s+directories\s+have\s+been\s+renamed\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*If\s+most\s+recent\s+backup\s+is\s+not\s+level\s+0\,\s+recovery\s+fails\s+to\s+bring\s+back\s+all\s+files\s+when\s+directories\s+have\s+been\s+renamed\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Dave Ewart <davee AT ceu.ox.ac DOT uk>; Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:34:16 +0000; I've just been caught out by something which is either (a) a limitation of AMANDA and/or tar/dump; (b) a bug. In summary: when a directory is *renamed* the files underneath it are not considered to h; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00080.html (17,727 bytes)
2. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Dave Ewart <davee AT ceu.ox.ac DOT uk>; Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:50:45 +0000; A follow-up, prompted by a reply from Paul, indicating that I had indeed forgotten a couple of rather important bits of information! - The filesystem being discussed is ext3 - AMANDA is using 'tar' (; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00081.html (14,416 bytes)
3. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>; Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:35:51 -0500; We believe this version of tar is borked. Please get the older 1.13-19, 1.13-25, or the newer 1.15-1. For whatever reason, 1.14 was only visible on gnu.org for about 5 or 6 weeks, being replaced with; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00082.html (15,073 bytes)
4. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Dave Ewart <davee AT ceu.ox.ac DOT uk>; Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:43:30 +0000; Interesting. Do you think that the behaviour I'm seeing is solely as a result of 'tar' here? Is the behaviour I describe something that you believe *should* *not* happen with AMANDA when using 'tar'?; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00083.html (15,429 bytes)
5. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Ian Turner <ian AT zmanda DOT com>; Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:42:56 -0500; Usually, I would say that this is a limitation of the UNIX filesystem. A directory's modification time can change anytime you add or remove a file in that directory. Obviously it doesn't make sense t; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00084.html (15,184 bytes)
6. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>; Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:02:43 -0500; I do not know this for a fact. ISTR the file headers it made weren't correct and recovery failures were the result. Possibly someone else can elaborate here? Which is exactly why I get this stuff (bo; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00085.html (16,089 bytes)
7. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Matt Hyclak <hyclak AT math.ohiou DOT edu>; Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:17:04 -0500; On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:02:43AM -0500, Gene Heskett enlightened us: It created proper archives, however it failed extracting archives that had sparse files in them properly. RedHat still uses this; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00086.html (16,384 bytes)
8. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Ian Turner <ian AT zmanda DOT com>; Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:27:27 -0500; This does not appear to happen with CVS tar in listed-incremental mode. Please try upgrading your tar and check if you still see this behaviour. For reference, this is the test I performed: $ # Build; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00087.html (15,181 bytes)
9. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT net>; Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:31:44 -0500; Nope, I use checkinstall for some stuff, but this isn't being done for these. And they are pinned in yum.conf. Yeah, my systems borked. Funny thing is, it works fine for everything I want to do, whic; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00088.html (17,352 bytes)
10. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Matt Hyclak <hyclak AT math.ohiou DOT edu>; Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:46:18 -0500; On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:31:44AM -0500, Gene Heskett enlightened us: I know we're drifting a bit off-topic here, but usually what I do for non-mission-critical machines (such as a home workstation); /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00089.html (15,514 bytes)
11. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Dave Ewart <davee AT ceu.ox.ac DOT uk>; Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:52:20 +0000; Well, that works both ways of course. The latest source might introduce new problems, and at least distro-issued packages have been preconfigured to put the files in 'all the right places', as per th; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00090.html (15,988 bytes)
12. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Dave Ewart <davee AT ceu.ox.ac DOT uk>; Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 16:21:42 +0000; OK, you've hit the nail on the head: Using the existing system tar: $ tar --version tar (GNU tar) 1.14 $ find . ./blah ./blah/a ./blah/a/foo ./blah/a/bar $ tar -cvf test1.tar --listed-incremental tes; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00091.html (17,192 bytes)
13. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Jon LaBadie <jon AT jgcomp DOT com>; Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:05:07 -0500; [snip] So, rather than use "listed-incremental" to recognize it is a renamed directory, gnutar's behavior is to consider then entire directory tree "changed" and back up the entire tree. Reading this; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00092.html (15,586 bytes)
14. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Michael Loftis <mloftis AT wgops DOT com>; Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:34:14 -0700; --On March 8, 2006 11:34:16 AM +0000 Dave Ewart <davee AT ceu.ox.ac DOT uk> wrote: Thoughts/opinions here? BTW the AMANDA server runs Debian/Woody (2.4.2p2-4) and the client being backed up above run; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00093.html (15,062 bytes)
15. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Dave Ewart <davee AT ceu.ox.ac DOT uk>; Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 09:16:36 +0000; Indeed, that very issue had occurred to me too :-) However, directory renames are fairly rare and IMO if there is an 'error' it should be "back up too much but making sure it's complete" rather than; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00095.html (15,849 bytes)
16. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: "Stefan G. Weichinger" <sgw AT amanda DOT org>; Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:37:36 +0100; Dave Ewart schrieb: Suggestion related to the tar-issues: Why not implement some check-routine into Amanda that checks for the installed tar-release and gives a WARNING if a well-known problematic re; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00259.html (14,718 bytes)
17. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: Paul Bijnens <paul.bijnens AT xplanation DOT com>; Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:12:27 +0100; Please try upgrading your tar and check if you still see this behaviour. OK, you've hit the nail on the head: Using the existing system tar: $ tar --version tar (GNU tar) 1.14 And using a rebuilt ver; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00260.html (16,556 bytes)
18. Re: If most recent backup is not level 0, recovery fails to bring back all files when directories have been renamed (score: 1): Author: "Stefan G. Weichinger" <sgw AT amanda DOT org>; Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:18:53 +0100; Paul Bijnens schrieb: Ok, then it has to get pointed out more clearly at installation-time that the user has to check for a proper release by himself or something. Users don't check the docs for prob; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Amanda-Users/2006-03/msg00261.html (14,571 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]