On 12/5/24 7:46 AM, Marco Gaiarin wrote:
I use virtual full backup to 'consolidate' backups on weekend; AFAI've understood, virtual full backups are a 'sd only' things.
Hello Marco, You have understood this correctly.
But if client is not abailable (common for that client, on weekend), also a virtualfull backup fail:
This should not be the case... And, the first error I see here is `Cancelling duplicate JobId=31257.` ----8<----
05-Dec 15:33 lnfbacula-dir JobId 31268: Rescheduled Job FVG-PP-HFA3-1.2024-12-05_15.33.41_23 at 05-Dec-2024 15:33 to re-run in 1800 seconds (05-Dec-2024 16:03). 05-Dec 15:33 lnfbacula-dir JobId 31268: Cancelling duplicate JobId=31257.
----8<----It seems that jobid 31257 is an earlier job than this one. It seems to me that everything after this `canceling duplicate job` error could just be a red herring. It is hard to tell if Bacula has decided to cancel this VFull job 31268 or the other one. :)
Can you share the configuration for your `FVG-PP-HFA3-1` job, the pools in question, etc? (might not be necessary, keep reading to the end)
I think this, and anything after the first error may be misleading us... ----8<----
05-Dec 15:33 lnfbacula-dir JobId 31268: Error: bsockcore.c:285 gethostbyname() for host "850-16268.dyn.pp.lnf.it" failed: ERR=Name or service not known 05-Dec 15:33 lnfbacula-dir JobId 31268: Failed to connect to File daemon.
----8<---- This can also be misleading us: ----8<----
05-Dec 15:33 lnfbacula-dir JobId 31268: 3904 Job FVG-PP-HFA3-1.2024-12-05_08.00.00_31 not found. 05-Dec 15:33 lnfbacula-dir JobId 31268: Error: bsockcore.c:285 gethostbyname() for host "850-16268.dyn.pp.lnf.it" failed: ERR=Name or service not known 05-Dec 15:33 lnfbacula-dir JobId 31268: Failed to connect to File daemon. 05-Dec 15:33 lnfbacula-dir JobId 31268: 3904 Job FVG-PP-HFA3-1.2024-12-05_08.00.00_31 not found.
----8<---- BUT... this is a very old version of Bacula Direct or and SD... I would strongly recommend to upgrade: ----8<----
05-Dec 15:33 lnfbacula-dir JobId 31268: Error: Bacula lnfbacula-dir 9.4.2 (04Feb19):
----8<----Client is quite old too, and should be upgraded at some point, but Clients are not contacted during VirtualFull level jobs, so I do not think that this is too important for us:
----8<----
Client: "fvg-pp-hfa3-1-fd" 7.4.4 (28Sep16) Microsoft (build 9200), 64-bit,Cross-compile,Win64
----8<----
Seems that hapens on client that areon dynamic DNS, so effectively client does not exist in DNS, not 'does not ping'. Apart putting clients on static addresses to they exist, there's something i can do?
Honestly, I think I would push you to upgrade Bacula to a current version (15.0.2). I seem to vaguely recall that there may have been an issue about the VirtualFull attempting to resolve the client unnecessarily.
I just ran some VirtualFull jobs in my environment, and I literally (tempor arily) set a client's to: ----8<---- Address = bogus.fqdn.top ----8<---- ...and I see no such DNS resolution errors in my `level=VirtualFull` joblog, and my VFulls for this client completed normally.P.S. One simple test (without upgrading) you can do is to temporarily set the `Address = localhost` for the Client `fvg-pp-hfa3-1-fd` in the Director's configuration, reload the Director's config, and run this job `FVG-PP-HFA3-1` again with `level=VirtualFull` and see what happens. Just check to make sure no other of this job is running due to the `canceling duplicate` setting you have enabled.
Hope this helps, Bill -- Bill Arlofski w...@protonmail.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
