Hello,
Thanks for the feedback. Very good idea to run the memory tests. I
should have thought of that myself.
It is nice to know that you have resolved the problem. Fortunately
Bacula checksums the blocks :-)
Best regards,
Kern
On 07/04/2014 05:03 PM, advan...@posteo.de wrote:
> On Sat, 28 J
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:30:12 +0200
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> It is unlikely that this is a Bacula problem, especially considering
> your remark that you have
> used it for years and never had any problems.
Hi List,
first of all I have to say thanks for all the helpful replies.
I checked every disk
On 06/30/2014 10:35 PM, John Stoffel wrote:
> Kern> Yes, it is clear that one can do read-only tests that do not destroy
> Kern> data. However, in this case, it seems to me more useful to do
> Kern> read/write (it is actually write/read) tests as it appears that the
> Kern> problem is more likely
Kern> Yes, it is clear that one can do read-only tests that do not destroy
Kern> data. However, in this case, it seems to me more useful to do
Kern> read/write (it is actually write/read) tests as it appears that the
Kern> problem is more likely in the write ...
Absolutely. And hopefully, this
I have seen this before with both disk and tape media, where a backup
job with no errors cannot later be restored due to i/o errors. The
simple answer is that media can fail, even when offline, which is one of
the reasons we make more than one backup.
It is possible, if cumbersome and expensive
Hello,
Yes, it is clear that one can do read-only tests that do not destroy
data. However, in this case, it seems to me more useful to do
read/write (it is actually write/read) tests as it appears that the
problem is more likely in the write ...
I have never heard of a non-destructive read/writ
Kern> 3. Run read/write disk tests on your USB disk (note: this will
Kern> destroy any existing data).
This isn't quite right. You can run read-write tests on a quiescent
filesystem (ie unmounted) without problems:
badblocks -svn /dev/sd?
will scan the entire disk using non-destructive read
It is unlikely that this is a Bacula problem, especially considering
your remark that you have
used it for years and never had any problems.
My best guess is that you have bad media or a bad medium or a bad
connector. When writing, unless the OS reports an error, Bacula assumes
the write is good.
Hello,
and sorry for replying so late... I've been busy with lots of other
things.
20.12.2009 11:44, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
> Arno Lehmann wrote:
>
>> This happens, as far as I can see, only with external drives (USB in
>> your and other cases, FireWire here), so I attribute it to imperfect
>>
Arno Lehmann wrote:
> This happens, as far as I can see, only with external drives (USB in
> your and other cases, FireWire here), so I attribute it to imperfect
> external disk controller chips or USB / FireWire stacks. Whenever I
> saw those sort of errors on internal disks, I either get log
It looks like I'm getting it now everytime. I started a new fullbackup 2
days ago and now tried to restore from it...
20-Dec 11:04 backup-sd JobId 6168: Ready to read from volume "Full-0002" on
device "FileStorage" (/mnt/backup).
20-Dec 11:04 backup-sd JobId 6168: Forward spacing Volume "Full-000
Oliver Lehmann wrote:
> Arno Lehmann wrote:
>
>> No, none that I know. An actual restore is the only way to find this.
>> To make sure your restores don't fail, run the SD with '-p', and
>> *really close watch for those errors in the reports*.
>
> man bacula-sd does not reveal a -p switch? Wher
Arno Lehmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 18.12.2009 14:38, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
> > Dan Langille writes:
> >
> >> Have you considered that perhaps your backup is corrupted? That is, the
> >> USB2 HDD that you have backed up to contains a disk error?
> >>
> >> I would be very careful with that HDD
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:38:45 +0100, Oliver Lehmann said:
>
> Dan Langille writes:
>
> >
> > Have you considered that perhaps your backup is corrupted? That is, the
> > USB2 HDD that you have backed up to contains a disk error?
> >
> > I would be very careful with that HDD, whatever
Hello,
18.12.2009 14:38, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
> Dan Langille writes:
>
>> Have you considered that perhaps your backup is corrupted? That is, the
>> USB2 HDD that you have backed up to contains a disk error?
>>
>> I would be very careful with that HDD, whatever you do, especially if
>> th
Dan Langille writes:
>
> Have you considered that perhaps your backup is corrupted? That is, the
> USB2 HDD that you have backed up to contains a disk error?
>
> I would be very careful with that HDD, whatever you do, especially if
> that is your only backup of this data.
I'm starting
Oliver Lehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had a "situation" today where I needed to recover my /boot directory.
> Not bad that I have backups I thought. But then I got a restore error. I
> already restored from time to time stuff with bacula and never got this
> kind of error.
> I neither have bad RAM,
Hello,
Sławomir Paszkiewicz wrote:
>
> Hello!
> I've been using Bacula and everything was running smoothly but now,
> when I must restore some *very, very* important data, bacula tolds me:
>
> 25-lis 18:16 bls JobId 1114: Error: block.c:318 Volume data error at
> 0:684407952!
> Block checksum
Hello,
26.11.2009 10:48, Sławomir Paszkiewicz wrote:
> Hello!
> I've been using Bacula and everything was running smoothly but now,
> when I must restore some *very, very* important data, bacula tolds me:
>
> 25-lis 18:16 bls JobId 1114: Error: block.c:318 Volume data error at
> 0:684407952!
> Bl
Hi.
This is really old. I would just let you know that the problems was solve
by moving the second LTO-3-tape drive onto its own SCSI-channel. This
error happened whenever there were written to both devices at the same
time.
Jesper
> Hi
>
>
> We've extended our Quantum PX502 with a PX506 so we
Hello,
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:08:00 +0100
Arno Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I did this already, nothing in the logs that indicates SCSI hardware
> > defects. I replugged the cable, rebooted the server and the tape library,
> > but nothing changed.
>
> Well, then it looks like it's ti
Hi,
19.12.2007 14:49,, Henry Jensen wrote::
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:32:05 +0100
> Arno Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So it seems to be a problem reading the tapes, not with wrong data on
>> tape.
>>
>>> The error appears with new tapes and with tapes being in use some mont
Hello,
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:32:05 +0100
Arno Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it seems to be a problem reading the tapes, not with wrong data on
> tape.
>
> > The error appears with new tapes and with tapes being in use some month now.
> > And yes, I have cleaned the drive with the cle
Hi,
19.12.2007 14:25,, Henry Jensen wrote::
> Hello,
>
> Since a few days I get "Block checksum mismatch" errors when trying to
> restore.
> I run bacula nearly a year now, I have done successfull restore jobs before.
> btape test completes successfull.
>
>
> Errors looks like this:
> 19-Dec 0
Hi,
08.08.2007 12:30,, Ralf Gross wrote::
> Arno Lehmann schrieb:
>>> while looking for my verify problems, I noticed that my full backup had
>>> errors
>>> at the end of the first tape but terminated with status OK. Therefor I
>>> noticed
>>> this error very late.
>> But you actually kept and r
Arno Lehmann schrieb:
> > while looking for my verify problems, I noticed that my full backup had
> > errors
> > at the end of the first tape but terminated with status OK. Therefor I
> > noticed
> > this error very late.
>
> But you actually kept and read the system log! Congratulations ;-)
Ye
Hi,
08.08.2007 09:30,, Ralf Gross wrote::
> Hi,
>
> while looking for my verify problems, I noticed that my full backup had errors
> at the end of the first tape but terminated with status OK. Therefor I noticed
> this error very late.
But you actually kept and read the system log! Congratulatio
On Thursday 22 March 2007 16:31, Ekkehard Burkon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
>
> >
> > Two things:
> >
> > 1. Something seems wrong (possibly with your configuration). By default
> > Bacula writes blocks of 64,512 bytes and not 65536 as indicated above on
the
> > error message. Th
Hi,
Kern Sibbald wrote:
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. Something seems wrong (possibly with your configuration). By default
> Bacula writes blocks of 64,512 bytes and not 65536 as indicated above on the
> error message. This makes me wonder. In any case, I don't recommend that
> you change the de
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:39:21 +0100, Ekkehard Burkon said:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get a backup server up and running with debian sarge as
> base system and approx 2TB of disk storage on a raid 5 array on a
> 3ware 9000 controller.
>
> The backups seem to be OK. But each restore fails wi
On Tuesday 20 March 2007 14:39, Ekkehard Burkon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get a backup server up and running with debian sarge as
> base system and approx 2TB of disk storage on a raid 5 array on a
> 3ware 9000 controller.
>
> The backups seem to be OK. But each restore fails with something
Kern Sibbald wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2005 22:29, Danny Butroyd wrote:
Matthias Vogt wrote:
Hi,
I testing Bacula 1.36.0 at the moment. Everthing work fine, except the
restore makes waves. If I restore tape stored files I sometime get an
error like this
--
DNS-and-FTP-Se
On Thursday 02 June 2005 22:29, Danny Butroyd wrote:
> Matthias Vogt wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I testing Bacula 1.36.0 at the moment. Everthing work fine, except the
> > restore makes waves. If I restore tape stored files I sometime get an
> > error like this
> >
> >--
> >DNS-and-FTP-Server:
Matthias Vogt wrote:
Hi,
I testing Bacula 1.36.0 at the moment. Everthing work fine, except the restore
makes waves. If I restore tape stored files I sometime get an error like this
--
DNS-and-FTP-Server: -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4761012 2005-05-23
08:23:33 /home/bacula-
On 2 Jun 2005 at 21:04, Matthias Vogt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I testing Bacula 1.36.0 at the moment. Everthing work fine, except the
> restore makes waves. If I restore tape stored files I sometime get an
> error like this
>
> --
> DNS-and-FTP-Server: -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 476101
On Thursday 12 May 2005 19:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry to "spam" the list, but just wanted to write a followup to my
> previous mails (in case someone else experiences the same problems).
>
> I've restarted bextract with '-p' option, and I got backup files back. No
> errors were printed, i
36 matches
Mail list logo
