On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Michael Stepner
<michaelstepner AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>
>> I haven't used the ftp module so I can't help much, but is that LIST
>> command actually sending any filenames?
>
>
> I don't know how to check for certain, but the with gFTP I certainly get a
> file listing, and the log shows:
>
>>> (000090)26/01/2012 0:49:34 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> LIST -aL
>>> (000090)26/01/2012 0:49:34 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> 150 Connection
>>> accepted
>>> (000090)26/01/2012 0:49:34 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> 226 Transfer OK
Can you try the command line ftp program? 'ls' should correspond to
LIST, and 'ls -a' should show hidden files. Alternatively, you could
use wireshark to observe the network activity on either the linux or
windows side.
> BackupPC might not be getting a file listing, and it shows:
>
>>> (000089)26/01/2012 0:45:13 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> LIST
>>> (000089)26/01/2012 0:45:13 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> 150 Connection
>>> accepted
>>> (000089)26/01/2012 0:45:13 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> 226 Transfer OK
>
> Although, as I said in a previous post, I speculate that that could be due
> to the lack of BackupPC sending a "SYST" command, which gFTP did:
>>> (000090)26/01/2012 0:49:33 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> SYST
>>> (000090)26/01/2012 0:49:33 AM - backup (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx)> 215 UNIX
>>> emulated by FileZilla
SYST is just a request for the OS version name - it should not change
subsequent behavior.
man ftp and man ftpd on the linux system should give the details of
commands and expected responses.
>> Since you are installing a 3rd party service on the client for the
>> transfer anyway, why not use cwrRsync which is known to work and
>> probably more efficient?
>
>
> A fair point. I already have an FTP server running on the clients for
> services apart from backups, so the decision is whether or not to install a
> second 3rd party service. I'm probably willing to do that, although I'd
> prefer to use the existing FTP server.
You'll probably get more correct incremental backups with rsync
(deletions and changes with old timestamps tracked) and if you have
low bandwidth connections, fulls will be much more efficient.
> Moreover, that might not be an option for all users. I do think this bug is
> worth sorting out.
I think you'll have to sort out whether it is filezilla doing
something non-standard or a backuppc bug, though.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell AT gmail DOT com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
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/
|
