On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:54:05 -0500
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com> wrote:

> Steve Blackwell wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:00:19 -0500
> > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Steve Blackwell wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:19:47 -0500
> >>> Les Mikesell <lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Steve Blackwell wrote:
> >>>>> Backuppc has been behaving strangely lately. This is another
> >>>>> instance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is part of the log file for host steve:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2009-08-12 01:00:06 full backup started for directory /
> >>>>> 2009-08-12 01:00:06 full backup started for directory /
> >>>>> 2009-08-12 05:00:06 Rename /media/disk/pc/steve/new
> >>>>> -> /media/disk/pc/steve/151 failed 
> 
> 
> >>>> Out of inodes?  Check with 'df -i'.
> >>> # df -i
> >>> Filesystem            Inodes   IUsed   IFree IUse% Mounted on
> >>> /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00
> >>>                    38502400  300300 38202100    1% /
> >>> /dev/sdb1            50200      40   50160    1% /boot
> >>> tmpfs               129178       2  129176    1% /dev/shm
> >>> /dev/sda1          45944516   79740 45864776    1% /mnt/c_drive
> >>> /dev/sdc1                0       0       0    -  /media/UDISK
> >>> /dev/sdd1          488231440      23 488231417
> >>> 1% /media/WINDOWS_BACUP /dev/sdd2          61063168  790151
> >>> 60273017    2% /media/disk
> >>>
> >>> No problems there but thanks for the suggestion.
> >> Can you 'mv /media//disk/pc/steve/new  /media/disk/pc/steve/151' as
> >> the backuppc user?  Also, look at the output of 'dmesg' - you might
> >> have physical disk errors.   If this is a packaged (rpm) install,
> >> did you follow the wiki instructions for moving the storage
> >> location?
> >>
> > 
> > There is no file /media/disk/pc/steve/new.
> > 
> > # ls -l /media/disk/pc/steve
> > total 15388
> > drwxr-x--- 3 backuppc backuppc    4096 2009-08-04 17:03 146
> > drwxr-x--- 3 backuppc backuppc    4096 2009-08-05 20:18 147
> > drwxr-x--- 3 backuppc backuppc    4096 2009-08-08 18:31 148
> > drwxr-x--- 3 backuppc backuppc    4096 2009-08-11 02:10 150
> > drwxr-x--- 3 backuppc backuppc    4096 2009-08-12 05:13 151
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     802 2009-08-12 05:21 backups
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     799 2009-08-12 05:21 backups.old
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc       0 2008-07-26 19:00 LOCK
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     585 2009-01-31 20:09 LOG.012009.z
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     963 2009-02-28 20:40 LOG.022009.z
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     412 2009-03-23 20:14 LOG.032009.z
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     797 2009-04-26 20:09 LOG.042009.z
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     172 2009-06-28 15:30 LOG.062009.z
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     959 2008-08-31 20:05 LOG.082008.z
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc    2308 2009-08-12 05:00 LOG.082009
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     748 2008-09-22 20:07 LOG.092008.z
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     662 2008-10-31 20:11 LOG.102008.z
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     625 2008-11-30 05:27 LOG.112008.z
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     143 2008-12-09 05:05 LOG.122008.z
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc apache       290 2008-07-30 20:48
> > Restoreinfo.0 -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     200 2008-07-30
> > 20:48 RestoreLOG.0.z -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc      36
> > 2008-07-30 20:48 restores -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc 4373346
> > 2009-08-04 17:03 XferLOG.146.z -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc
> > 439712 2009-08-05 20:18 XferLOG.147.z -rw-r----- 1 backuppc
> > backuppc  619036 2009-08-08 18:31 XferLOG.148.z -rw-r----- 1
> > backuppc backuppc 1064831 2009-08-10 02:31 XferLOG.149.z -rw-r-----
> > 1 backuppc backuppc  848135 2009-08-11 02:10 XferLOG.150.z
> > -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc 8149788 2009-08-12 05:00
> > XferLOG.151.z -rw-r----- 1 backuppc backuppc     264 2008-07-29
> > 12:25 XferLOG.bad.z.old
> > 
> 
> So a subsequent backup has completed?  Or was the 151 directory there 
> before?  If it wasn't there and that rename failed, there would be an 
> obvious reason for the subsequent link failures involving things
> under the 151 directory.

As I said in my original e-mail:

> 2009-08-12 01:00:06 full backup started for directory /
> 2009-08-12 01:00:06 full backup started for directory /
> 2009-08-12 05:00:06 Rename /media/disk/pc/steve/new
-> /media/disk/pc/steve/151 failed   
> 2009-08-12 05:00:06 full backup complete, 388335 files, 0 bytes, 2
xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 2 other) 
> 2009-08-12 05:00:06 full backup 151 complete, 388335 files, 0 bytes, 2
xferErrs (0 bad files, 0 bad shares, 2 other)
>
> Apart from the fact that the backup seems to have started twice (Maybe
> just logged twice?)..."

So perhaps backuppc is somehow scheduling the backup to run twice at
the same time but then if the rename of 'new' to '151' is failing, what
is creating '151'? Does the first backup do the rename so that 'new'
does not exist for the 2nd backup? That might explain things but then
how is the backup scheduled twice?

Confused
Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
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/