Matthias Meyer wrote:
> Johan Ehnberg wrote:
> 
>> Quoting Matthias Meyer <matthias.meyer AT gmx DOT li>:
>>
>>> After a system crash and tons of errors in my ext3 filesystem I have to
>>> run e2fsck.
>>> During this I lost some GB of data in /var/lib/backuppc.
>>> For the time being I have disabled BackupPC_nightly by renaming it to
>>> BackupPC_nightly.disabled ;-)
>>>
>>> The rest of the backuppc system should run as well as possible.
>>>
>>> Now I get some errors from BackupPC_link:
>>> BackupPC_link got error -4 when calling
>>>
> MakeFileLink(/var/lib/backuppc/pc/firewall/0/f%2f/fvar/flog/flogwatch/f2008-12-26,
>>> 845a684e4a8c9fe22d11484dc13e24fc, 1)
>>>
>>> I believe the reason is that
>>> /var/lib/backuppc/cpool/8/4/5/845a684e4a8c9fe22d11484dc13e24fc
>>> is a directory and not a file. Probably during e2fsck created.
>>>
>>> What should I do?
>>> Should I delete all directories in /var/lib/backuppc/cpool/?/?/?/*
>>> or would BackupPC_nightly do this job?
>>>
>>> Is it a problem to disable BackupPC_nightly?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Matthias
>>> --
>>> Don't Panic
>>>
>> Matthias,
>>
>> Sorry to hear about that. I would recommend the following:
>> - Consider all the backed up data corrupt (don't build any new backups on
>> it) - Start a fresh pool, saving the old one for the duration of your
>> normal cycle - Look for the reason for the crash/corruption and prevent it
>> from happening - After that, there's no need to disable nightly
>>
>> If a full backup is not possible (remote rsync), it may be feasible to
>> check the
>> integrity of the pool (VerifyProb=1 for a while) and manually correct any
>> problems. But beware, if there are many errors it could take ages.
>>
>> Hth,
>> Johan Ehnberg
>>
> Thanks for your sympathy :-)
> I would believe the filesystem should be ok in the meantime. e2fsck needs to
> run 3 or 4 times and need in total more than 2 days. After this lost+found
> contains approximately 10% of my data :-( No chance to reconstruct all of
> them.
> 
> 1) So you would recommend:
> mv /var/lib/backuppc/cpool /var/lib/backuppc/cpool.sav
> mkdir /var/lib/backuppc/cpool
> I would believe that the hardlinks
> from /var/lib/backuppc/pc/<host>/<backup-number> than will point to
> cpool.sav instead cpool?
> The disadvantage is that up to now every file have to be created in the new
> cpool. No one of the existing files (in cpool.sav) can be reused.
> By deleting of old backups during the next month, the cpool.sav should be
> empty and can be deleted than.
> 
> 2) I would believe that every backuped file will be checked against cpool.
> Is it not identical than a new file will be created in cpool.
> During the deletion of old backups also old, (maybee corrupt) files in cpool
> will be deleted. So possible corrupt files in cpool will disappear
> automaticly during the next month.
> 
> Which strategy would you prefer?
> 
> Thanks

In 1) I was a bit vague: I meant moving all data (to be used only if 
needed, including cpool) and making fresh backups altogether. And 
exactly that will make it effortless for you - the new pool is clean.

In 2) you are correct unless you are using checksum caching. To clean 
unused files you need nightly, and to use that you want a clean pool.

Go for 2) if there are few errors that you can correct yourself to keep 
BackupPC running smoothly with an unbroken line of backups.

However, 10 GB sounds like you'll save time and trouble by allowing 
backuppc to make new backups - if you can afford the bandwidth. At the 
same time you won't have to worry about many factors that could go wrong.

Regards,
Johan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
List:    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki:    http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/