On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Matthias Meyer
<matthias.meyer AT gmx DOT li> wrote:
Vetch wrote:
>
> Ok - I tried direct restores back into the original directories over the
> network - and it came up with successful restores for all the home
> directories...
> Does this mean that the data has been fully successfully restored?
Probably. But as I said, BackupPC didn't check file consistency.
Ok... So it could be that the files are corrupt in the database...
Though given the positive e2fsck results, that seems unlikely...
> I think I have about 1000 files missing (out of about 35000)...
You think? Do you really miss one of this 1000 files?
No - I haven't noticed any missing files, so I'm not too worried (realistically, I tend to keep numerous versions of any important document I'm working on anyway, so...)
> Now, this wouldn't be the end of the world, but I'd be interested to know
> if when it reports success, it has definitely brought back the entire
> dataset...
Yes. But possible not all the files YOU expected in the backup dataset.
Ok... so backuppc managed to restore all the data it has available...
... but perhaps I didn't count properly, or alternatively, didn't backup properly in the first place...
> ... and if so... do you have any suggestions as to why I may have
> different numbers of files?
>
How do you measure the file counts?
I took the somewhat unscientific approach of using an offline backup and using windows to count the files based on the properties...
Essentially, I had one of the folders stored as an offline backup (the one with 35000-ish files in) which I synchronise most days...
I used the windows properties to count files in the folder (36026) and then I took an archive (zip) copy of my offline directory which also 36026 files in it, based on the archive file count...
I then connected to the server, synchronised and used the windows properties on it again...
It showed (I can't remember now exactly), but I believe it was around 35200...
I then restored the archive and now the folder properties report 36093 (I attribute the extra files to being ones which are not offline synchronisable using the Windows XP offline files (e.g. .pst files, etc)...
Now, potentially, I guess that means that there could have just been more files on my offline copy (I expected about 14 since the offline synch claimed that 14 files had changed and needed to be synchronised)...
Equally, possibly there were files on my offline copy that couldn't be copied to the server through synch and I didn't know...
... though I would have expected to have noticed previously...
Equally, it's possible that the backuppc user didn't have rights on the server to backup all files on the server, but I was ssh-ing in and sudo-ing the command, so I believe that should give it root access for the rsync command...
I don't know - it just seems like there should have been more files...
Like I say, I'm not particualarly bothered, as I think it's highly unlikely any of the files I genuinely need have been completely lost, but still...
I'd be interested in knowing what caused the discrepancy - if it's my counting, my setup, my configuration or the system behaving strangely...
> I've just tried this - I booted to a live CD and e2fsck-ed the device...
> On first scan, it reported clean... I'm now running a e2fsck -f to force
> it to check, but assuming that it reports the device as clean, then can I
> assume that the backups are not corrupted?
Yes!
Excellent... Well, that's good news...
> In which case, I have to wonder about the missing files...
> Am I just worrying unneccessarily?
>
Probably. We didn't know yet if really files are missing or if your
measurement is wrong.
Heh - it's probably my measurement, isn't it? ;)
Oh well - let's hope so ;)
Once again many thanks,
Jx
br
Matthias
--
Don't Panic
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
