On Thursday 09 March 2006 12:14, Iulian Topliceanu wrote:
>> On 2006-03-09 17:19, Iulian Topliceanu wrote:
>>> Paul Bijnens wrote:
>>>> On 2006-03-09 13:25, Iulian Topliceanu wrote:
>>>>> The dump definition looks like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> dumpcycle 10 day        # the number of days in the normal dump
>>>>> cycle runspercycle 8  day    # the number of amdump runs in
>>>>> dumpcycle days tapecycle 12 tapes      # the number of tapes in
>>>>> rotation
>>>>
>>>> seems fine.
>>>
>>> Amanda reported that the dumps where successfully to tape vtape-7,
>>> but taking a simple look to what that vtape-7 contained (using ls),
>>> has proved
>>> the opposite, there was no sign of /var/spool/mail/p (and the other
>>> DLE's
>>> which had the same problem) on vtape-7.
>>>
>>> vtape-7 contained  /data/data0/share1 (directory, which I said
>>> above, was
>>> reported not to be backuped successfully)
>>>
>>> I should mention that these this didn't occure on the same run. My
>>> guess is that Amanda backuped successfully /var/spool/mail/p (and
>>> the other DLE's) on the 24.02 and wrote them to vtape-7, but on the
>>> 2.03 when this error occured:
>>>
>>> baal /data/data0/share1 lev 0 FAILED [dump larger than tape,
>>> 31665455 KB,
>>> incremental dump also larger than tape]
>>>
>>> The dumps where written again on vtape-7, so that's the reason why
>>> /data/data0/share1 appears to pe on vtape-7 instead of
>>> /var/spool/mail/p (and the other DLE's)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I've noticed that 12 vtapes where used in less than 10 days (the
>>> dumpcycle
>>> = 10 days) but is that an excuse for missing data?
>>
>> Again on vtape-7 ???  How is that possible?
>> Do you have runtapes > 1 ?
>> Or do you run amdump multiple times a day?
>
>Amanda uses sometime more than 1 tape per run. That's why vtape-7 was
>again next. So even if I would have defined runtapes 1, Amanda would
> have used more.
>
If you've got runtapes=1, and it still uses more, I'd say that 
installation is hosed, possbly even confused as to where its .conf file 
is.  Have you perchance done a reinstall somewhere along the line?

>> Any idea why amadmin still believes that vtape-7 contains the data
>> from feb 24, and not data from mar 2 ?
>
>This is what I'm trying to find out. and I have no logical explanation
> yet.
>
>>>Level 1 dump didn't contain *all* of the expected files. Some of the
>>> mails received during the level 0 dump and level 1 dump, where not
>>> present.
>>>
>>>I should add that the volume /var/spool/mail (which is split in
>>>/var/spool/mail/[a-z]) is 130 GB big and has ~7 million inodes.
>
>What about the missing files? Does anyone have a clue about how
> something like this is possible? Is it because of the huge number of
> inodes on the fs?
>
>Iulian Topliceanu

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.