Bacula-users

Re: [Bacula-users] Inconsistent use of checksums in ancient 3.0.3 version

2016-05-11 00:40:39
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Inconsistent use of checksums in ancient 3.0.3 version
From: Kern Sibbald <kern AT sibbald DOT com>
To: Davin Church <davinchurch AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 06:39:20 +0200
I am sorry, I have no idea.

Kern

On 05/11/2016 12:00 AM, Davin Church wrote:
<sigh>   :-(

What's the latest version publicly available, compiled for Windows, with all three daemons?

Davin

At 02:10 PM 5/10/2016, you wrote:
Bacula currently has the FD and SD available for Windows, but not the Director.

Best regards,
Kern

On 05/10/2016 06:06 PM, Davin Church wrote:
At 09:53 AM 5/10/2016, you wrote:
Hello Davin,

In order to correct a misunderstanding you have, please go to the bacula.org website and click on releases and read about Release 7.4.0, then click on the menu Downloads -> Download Center, and you will see in both of those pages that the Windows version is and has been available since the 7.4.0 release for free.  Prior to that it was available from Bacula Systems at a very low price.

Super!!  I've been fighting with 3.0.3a for years now because there hasn't been a personal Windows build available.  I needed to run all the components (not just the FD) on Windows, so I didn't have many options.  I'm sure this newer stuff will work wonderfully for me!  (I have quite a few machines around my house, plus a number of VMs, so the cost of a commercial version was out of range of my pocketbook.)

In case you are backing up to DVDs, please be aware that the build-in DVD device for Bacula is no longer supported.

Best regards,
Kern

Yes, thank you.  I'm backing up to hard disk and then copying volumes to DVD later (with copy verification) to avoid potential DVD-writing errors.

Davin


On 05/10/2016 04:30 PM, Davin Church wrote:
Thanks, Kern!

Yes, I know it's a terribly old version, but I've only just found a Windows build of a later version (5.x) - it didn't used to be available.  I'll be trying that out once I get recovered from a big crash I had.  But I need my backups to help me recover and I'm having various problems with it.  (I don't expect anyone to be able to help directly with anything this ancient.)  I'd love to jump clear to 7.4.x, but it hasn't been compiled for Windows and I don't have the resources and skills to do it myself.

In the meantime, I explicitly ask for MD5 checksums and have done so since I started this catalog.  Single specific files that I've examined sometimes do and sometimes don't (in no particular pattern) keep checksums each time they're backed up, which is the most confusing thing.  None of the ones I'm looking at are either links or directories.

I'll muddle through.  I may have to restore my entire system (400 DVDs) to a temporary directory and run direct comparisons from disk.

Davin

At 02:06 AM 5/10/2016, you wrote:
Hello,

First you are running a *very* old Bacula.  It is so old that I really have no idea what features it did and did not have.  The checksum field was not implemented in the beginning, so it is possible that version 3.0.x only had a partial implementation.  In addition, whether or not a checksum is computed depends on several things:

1. If the user has not explicitly requested it (possibly set by default) in the FileSet, there will be no checksum.
2. There is no checksum for links (as opposed to files).
3. There is no checksum for directory entries.

Since your version of Bacula is so old, if you do decide to upgrade, I would recommend that you save a copy of your Bacula installation including the database in case of some crazy disaster, then re-initialize the database and install a completely new 7.4.x version of Bacula.

Best regards,
Kern

On 05/10/2016 03:02 AM, Davin Church wrote:
For years I've been using the ancient 3.0.3 version of Bacula, but
I'm now having computer problems and I want to verify my current
files' MD5 checksums against the database.  However, when I look in
the database's File.MD5 column, I find that some entries have
reasonable-looking base64-encoded checksums but many just have
"0".  I see no particular pattern to when checksums do or don't appear.

Why would some File entries have checksums and some not?  Does anyone
know of a bug in that old system that caused some checksums to be missing?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users


Davin


Davin


Davin


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>