From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 1 13:49:25 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Eelco Leenen / Creative Minds) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:49:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Box Backup] Restoring files / directories Message-ID: <58470.62.58.195.244.1125578965.squirrel@zeus.creative-minds.nl> Hello, Currently, I'm writing an application which makes it possible for users to restore their files and directories from a boxbackup store. I've stumbled upon 2 things : 1) Restoring a directory with all of it's contents (recursive) works ok, but it won't restore deleted files. This can be done using the '-d' flag, but has to be done a second time and using another destination. Imo, this is very inconvenient. When I want a full recursive restore of a directory, I would like to restore ALL files at once. My suggestion, add an '-a' flag so that all files and directories (also deleted onces!) are restored to the given destination. 2) Restoring a single file using 'get' still needs the correct directory when using the objectID. Why ? .. using a filename, I can understand that you should change (cd) to the right directory (since the same filenames can exist many times). But using a unique ID, why do you need to do this ? I recommend that Boxbackup gets the correct file when using the ID without the need to change to the correct directory, like it works with the 'restore' command. Gr From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 1 13:52:42 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:52:42 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Restoring files / directories In-Reply-To: <58470.62.58.195.244.1125578965.squirrel@zeus.creative-minds.nl> References: <58470.62.58.195.244.1125578965.squirrel@zeus.creative-minds.nl> Message-ID: <45BC42CF-0BD8-41E5-85D3-E00375E7F39C@fluffy.co.uk> On 1 Sep 2005, at 13:49, Eelco Leenen / Creative Minds wrote: > Hello, > > Currently, I'm writing an application which makes it possible for > users to > restore their files and directories from a boxbackup store. Have you see this? http://boxi.sourceforge.net/ > I've stumbled > upon 2 things : > > 1) Restoring a directory with all of it's contents (recursive) > works ok, > but it won't restore deleted files. This can be done using the '-d' > flag, > but has to be done a second time and using another destination. > Imo, this > is very inconvenient. When I want a full recursive restore of a > directory, > I would like to restore ALL files at once. Really? Surely the point of a restore is to retrieve the state of the backed up files at the last backup run. > > My suggestion, add an '-a' flag so that all files and directories > (also > deleted onces!) are restored to the given destination. I'm not convinced this is a good plan. > > 2) Restoring a single file using 'get' still needs the correct > directory > when using the objectID. Why ? .. using a filename, I can > understand that > you should change (cd) to the right directory (since the same > filenames > can exist many times). But using a unique ID, why do you need to do > this ? > I recommend that Boxbackup gets the correct file when using the ID > without > the need to change to the correct directory, like it works with the > 'restore' command. Because of the way the server works (currently), it needs to know the ID of the directory to restore a file. The request to the server has to contain directory and file IDs. Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 1 16:58:13 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Garry Glendown) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:58:13 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Restoring files / directories In-Reply-To: <45BC42CF-0BD8-41E5-85D3-E00375E7F39C@fluffy.co.uk> References: <58470.62.58.195.244.1125578965.squirrel@zeus.creative-minds.nl> <45BC42CF-0BD8-41E5-85D3-E00375E7F39C@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <43172515.9070601@nethinks.com> Ben Summers wrote: > > On 1 Sep 2005, at 13:49, Eelco Leenen / Creative Minds wrote: >> 1) Restoring a directory with all of it's contents (recursive) works ok, >> but it won't restore deleted files. This can be done using the '-d' >> flag, >> but has to be done a second time and using another destination. Imo, >> this >> is very inconvenient. When I want a full recursive restore of a >> directory, >> I would like to restore ALL files at once. > > > Really? Surely the point of a restore is to retrieve the state of the > backed up files at the last backup run. Also, if an option to restore any and all files, including deleted, files, how do you define which version of the deleted files you want? The most currently deleted one, the one before that, etc ... So, personally, a "-a" option as suggested IMHO is pointless in most cases ... -gg From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 1 20:33:23 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Gary) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Box Backup] Coding standards In-Reply-To: <932219F4-3E93-46D8-8B02-86553432530D@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <20050901193324.64615.qmail@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > No overloading of operators, especially not for i/o. Only exception Once I read the subject, I knew this was gonna be in here ;) j/k. > Indent with tabs, with 4 character tab stops. > Bracing style: (...) I think every programmer is most efficient and produces least bugs when he or she is using his or her own code-style and idioms (within reason, of course). We could always use an automated source code styler to bring everything into a uniform code universe. Gary __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 1 20:55:11 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Martin Ebourne) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:55:11 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Coding standards In-Reply-To: <20050901193324.64615.qmail@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050901193324.64615.qmail@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1125604511.11068.35.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 12:33 -0700, Gary wrote: > > No overloading of operators, especially not for i/o. Only exception > > Once I read the subject, I knew this was gonna be in here ;) j/k. > > > Indent with tabs, with 4 character tab stops. > > Bracing style: (...) > > I think every programmer is most efficient and produces least bugs when > he or she is using his or her own code-style and idioms (within reason, > of course). We could always use an automated source code styler to > bring everything into a uniform code universe. The trouble with gnu indent and the others is that they tend to mess up the difficult indenting - especially when statements are split over lines. That's ok as a one off because they get fixed manually, but as a repeated process the complex alignments wouldn't be fixable. Cheers, Martin. From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 1 20:58:11 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:58:11 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Coding standards In-Reply-To: <20050901193324.64615.qmail@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050901193324.64615.qmail@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1 Sep 2005, at 20:33, Gary wrote: >> No overloading of operators, especially not for i/o. Only exception >> > > Once I read the subject, I knew this was gonna be in here ;) j/k. Better people than I have explained in depth why operator overloading is a Bad Thing. > > >> Indent with tabs, with 4 character tab stops. >> Bracing style: (...) >> > > I think every programmer is most efficient and produces least bugs > when > he or she is using his or her own code-style and idioms (within > reason, > of course). We could always use an automated source code styler to > bring everything into a uniform code universe. Everyone would be welcome to work in the way they work best. I think it would be appreciated by everyone to have a consistent style, but how this is achieved is up to the individual. (As long as it doesn't create spurious diffs in source control.) Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 1 22:56:20 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Kristopher Zentner) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:56:20 -0700 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source Message-ID: <20050901145620.sebvbyklo8w4sw08@webmail.section6.net> I set up box backup not to long ago with the intention of connecting 3 servers to it. It's backing everything up to a single USB drive (so no RAID) One client running FreeBSD has a bunch of config files and only takes up 7 gigs, the other client is my media server running Ubuntu. My media server backup that has all my cds (which are mostly aac/mp3) and movies, etc is what's puzzling me: Here's the FreeBSD server's backup stats via du: (#:/backups/backup)- du -h -d 0 00000002 242G 00000002 However here is the Ubuntu client's drive stats: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda1 185G 142G 44G 77% / Granted I'm not backing up the entire drive, only about 135G worth and this is afer only one snapshot session, but even then the backup shouldn't be that big should it? I'm using v0.09 on both client and server. Thanks for any help on this... -Kris From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 2 08:36:57 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:36:57 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source In-Reply-To: <20050901145620.sebvbyklo8w4sw08@webmail.section6.net> References: <20050901145620.sebvbyklo8w4sw08@webmail.section6.net> Message-ID: On 1 Sep 2005, at 22:56, Kristopher Zentner wrote: > I set up box backup not to long ago with the intention of > connecting 3 servers > to it. It's backing everything up to a single USB drive (so no > RAID) One client > running FreeBSD has a bunch of config files and only takes up 7 > gigs, the other > client is my media server running Ubuntu. > > My media server backup that has all my cds (which are mostly aac/ > mp3) and > movies, etc is what's puzzling me: > > Here's the FreeBSD server's backup stats via du: > (#:/backups/backup)- du -h -d 0 00000002 > 242G 00000002 > > However here is the Ubuntu client's drive stats: > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > /dev/hda1 185G 142G 44G 77% / > > Granted I'm not backing up the entire drive, only about 135G worth > and this is > afer only one snapshot session, but even then the backup shouldn't > be that big > should it? I'm using v0.09 on both client and server. It depends, because old versions of files are kept until the soft limit on the account is exceeded. You haven't given sufficient information for any meaningful answer. * How often do the files change on the clients? * What are the individual limits and usage for the two accounts? (use bbstoreaccounts to get this) For example, if files on the 7G client changed daily and you had a 100G limit on the corresponding server account, your server could be acting as expected. Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 2 17:25:30 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Kristopher Zentner) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:25:30 -0700 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source Message-ID: <20050902092530.oc1n4vlyrk0kcg4c@webmail.section6.net> > It depends, because old versions of files are kept until the soft > limit on the account is exceeded. You haven't given sufficient > information for any meaningful answer. > > * How often do the files change on the clients? > > * What are the individual limits and usage for the two accounts? (use > bbstoreaccounts to get this) > > For example, if files on the 7G client changed daily and you had a > 100G limit on the corresponding server account, your server could be > acting as expected. > > Ben I realize that incremental/differential updates will fill the drive after time. However this is after only *one* snapshot session, my first one as I said... > Granted I'm not backing up the entire drive, only about 135G worth > and this is afer only one snapshot session, There hasn't been a chance for differential or incrementals to be made so how often the files change is irrelevant since changes have not been stored, although there have been no changes on the drive in the time i've used boxbackup. The limits I've set on that account are 250G soft limit, 259G hard. Account 1 has only been backed up a few days, however, the du command I displayed showed the space used only by the account in question (account 2): > (#:/backups/backup)- du -h -d 0 00000002 > 242G 00000002 account 1 by contrast is still pretty sane and i've run more than one snapshot backup on it (#:/backups/backup)- du -h -d 0 00000001 7.1G 00000001 Is it possible it has something to do with using a lot of already compressed media? I really have no idea why it'd be using this much. -Kris From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 2 17:52:23 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:52:23 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source In-Reply-To: <20050902092530.oc1n4vlyrk0kcg4c@webmail.section6.net> References: <20050902092530.oc1n4vlyrk0kcg4c@webmail.section6.net> Message-ID: <31DAEE2F-6DEF-47CF-B56D-6D97AFBC4F70@fluffy.co.uk> On 2 Sep 2005, at 17:25, Kristopher Zentner wrote: >> It depends, because old versions of files are kept until the soft >> limit on the account is exceeded. You haven't given sufficient >> information for any meaningful answer. >> >> * How often do the files change on the clients? >> >> * What are the individual limits and usage for the two accounts? (use >> bbstoreaccounts to get this) >> >> For example, if files on the 7G client changed daily and you had a >> 100G limit on the corresponding server account, your server could be >> acting as expected. >> >> Ben >> > > I realize that incremental/differential updates will fill the drive > after time. > However this is after only *one* snapshot session, my first one as > I said... You didn't say that the 7G account only had one session, and you gave the total for both accounts. I just wanted to eliminate the obvious. > > >> Granted I'm not backing up the entire drive, only about 135G worth >> and this is afer only one snapshot session, >> > > There hasn't been a chance for differential or incrementals to be > made so how > often the files change is irrelevant since changes have not been > stored, > although there have been no changes on the drive in the time i've used > boxbackup. The limits I've set on that account are 250G soft limit, > 259G hard. > > Account 1 has only been backed up a few days, however, the du > command I > displayed showed the space used only by the account in question > (account 2): > > >> (#:/backups/backup)- du -h -d 0 00000002 >> 242G 00000002 >> > > account 1 by contrast is still pretty sane and i've run more than > one snapshot > backup on it > > (#:/backups/backup)- du -h -d 0 00000001 > 7.1G 00000001 > > Is it possible it has something to do with using a lot of already > compressed > media? I really have no idea why it'd be using this much. It does seem to be a bit high. The files are being run through a compression algorithm, but it specifically states in the docs that it should only inflate by a 5 bytes per 16k or so. So that's not going to be it. Can you do a bbstoreacounts info on the offending account to see how much space it thinks it's used? The old and delete counts might be interesting. You could also log in with bbackupquery to see if there are any odd happenings. Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 2 18:34:01 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Kristopher Zentner) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 10:34:01 -0700 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source In-Reply-To: <31DAEE2F-6DEF-47CF-B56D-6D97AFBC4F70@fluffy.co.uk> References: <20050902092530.oc1n4vlyrk0kcg4c@webmail.section6.net> <31DAEE2F-6DEF-47CF-B56D-6D97AFBC4F70@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <20050902103401.6isomk434o8owcwc@webmail.section6.net> Quoting Ben Summers : > > On 2 Sep 2005, at 17:25, Kristopher Zentner wrote: > >>> It depends, because old versions of files are kept until the soft >>> limit on the account is exceeded. You haven't given sufficient >>> information for any meaningful answer. >>> >>> * How often do the files change on the clients? >>> >>> * What are the individual limits and usage for the two accounts? (use >>> bbstoreaccounts to get this) >>> >>> For example, if files on the 7G client changed daily and you had a >>> 100G limit on the corresponding server account, your server could be >>> acting as expected. >>> >>> Ben >>> >> >> I realize that incremental/differential updates will fill the drive >> after time. >> However this is after only *one* snapshot session, my first one as >> I said... > > You didn't say that the 7G account only had one session, and you gave > the total for both accounts. I just wanted to eliminate the obvious. > >> >> >>> Granted I'm not backing up the entire drive, only about 135G worth >>> and this is afer only one snapshot session, >>> >> >> There hasn't been a chance for differential or incrementals to be >> made so how >> often the files change is irrelevant since changes have not been stored, >> although there have been no changes on the drive in the time i've used >> boxbackup. The limits I've set on that account are 250G soft limit, >> 259G hard. >> >> Account 1 has only been backed up a few days, however, the du command I >> displayed showed the space used only by the account in question >> (account 2): >> >> >>> (#:/backups/backup)- du -h -d 0 00000002 >>> 242G 00000002 >>> >> >> account 1 by contrast is still pretty sane and i've run more than >> one snapshot >> backup on it >> >> (#:/backups/backup)- du -h -d 0 00000001 >> 7.1G 00000001 >> >> Is it possible it has something to do with using a lot of already >> compressed >> media? I really have no idea why it'd be using this much. > > It does seem to be a bit high. The files are being run through a > compression algorithm, but it specifically states in the docs that it > should only inflate by a 5 bytes per 16k or so. So that's not going > to be it. > > Can you do a bbstoreacounts info on the offending account to see how > much space it thinks it's used? The old and delete counts might be > interesting. You could also log in with bbackupquery to see if there > are any odd happenings. Looks like there's a little old stuff in account 2 since it ran again last night, but not much has changed... Just for reference here's df -h on the client in question: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda1 185G 142G 44G 77% / (#:/backups/backup)- bbstoreaccounts info 2 Account ID: 00000002 Last object ID: 39196 Blocks used: 126440279 (246953.67Mb) Blocks used by old files: 2282 (4.46Mb) Blocks used by deleted files: 0 (0.00Mb) Blocks used by directories: 5454 (10.65Mb) Block soft limit: 131072000 (256000.00Mb) Block hard limit: 135790592 (265216.00Mb) Client store marker: 1125602161000000 Usage with bbackupquery gives fairly predictable results: query > usage Used 246953.7Mb 93% ************************************* Old files 4.5Mb 0% Deleted files 0.0Mb 0% Directories 10.7Mb 0% Soft limit 256000.0Mb 96% ************************************** Hard limit 265216.0Mb 100% **************************************** Also did a quick compare which actually yielded some errors. Could this be part of the problem? query > compare -a -q WARNING: Quick compare used -- file attributes are not checked. Local file '/home/mythtv/.xsession-errors' has different contents to store file '/home/mythtv/.xsession-errors'. ERROR: (4/11) during file fetch and comparsion for '/home/mythtv/Movies/Love Act ually.avi' ERROR: (7/42) during file fetch and comparsion for '/home/mythtv/Movies/Monsters Inc.avi' ... (this error is repeated for 16 other files) Exception: Connection Protocol_ObjTooBig (7/42) From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 2 19:27:34 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Mr R G Shepherd) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:27:34 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source In-Reply-To: <20050901145620.sebvbyklo8w4sw08@webmail.section6.net> References: <20050901145620.sebvbyklo8w4sw08@webmail.section6.net> Message-ID: <43189996.2050909@robshepherd.net> Kristopher Zentner wrote: > > My media server backup that has all my cds (which are mostly aac/mp3) and > movies, etc is what's puzzling me: > I know this is completely OT but is boxbackup the best choice of backup solution for this type of client? I see the point of box backup for many potential circumstances but I fail to see what this setup requires from box backup. Would a weekly rsync not be more appropriate unless you really need to encrypt your mp3s of course... I would have thought an archive procedure onto removeable media would be a better choice. But then I guess some youngsters don't have the benefit of an acetate/vinyl hard copy of their entertainment media... re reading your post I see you have taken your audio off CD's - why increase the media requirements for these? No need for a massive flamefest, I'm just a little curious.... :) Cheers Rob From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 2 19:46:11 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Kristopher Zentner) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:46:11 -0700 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source In-Reply-To: <43189996.2050909@robshepherd.net> References: <20050901145620.sebvbyklo8w4sw08@webmail.section6.net> <43189996.2050909@robshepherd.net> Message-ID: <20050902114611.8xiigd7hc0sw80w8@webmail.section6.net> Quoting Mr R G Shepherd : > Kristopher Zentner wrote: >> >> My media server backup that has all my cds (which are mostly aac/mp3) and >> movies, etc is what's puzzling me: >> > > I know this is completely OT but is boxbackup the best choice of > backup solution for this type of client? I see the point of box > backup for many potential circumstances but I fail to see what this > setup requires from box backup. It might not be. I really just want a backup solution with a client/server set, and a decent command line for retrieval is nice too. I could just use rsync sure but I'd like to keep my other servers that have other types of data all on one backup solution for ease of use. I tried bacula earlier but it's too tape centric and is really a pain with trying to get pool recycling to work with scheduled full backups on a regular basis. Boxbackup is hard drive centric and MUCH easier which is why i took to it. > Would a weekly rsync not be more appropriate unless you really need > to encrypt your mp3s of course... This is a good idea and one I may take to if this problem is unresolved. Like I said, ideally I'd like one all encompassing solution, but rsync for a majority of the media (which won't change much) and boxbackup for configs/logs/etc may be better. > I would have thought an archive procedure onto removeable media would > be a better choice. But then I guess some youngsters don't have the > benefit of an acetate/vinyl hard copy of their entertainment media... > re reading your post I see you have taken your audio off CD's - why > increase the media requirements for these? One word: iPod. That, and I have a computer acting as a media center so I don't have to deal with loading and unloading plastic. It's very nice not having to go through about 500 cds to get what I want. Backups are nice to have of all this of course since a drive failure, or inadvertent rm renders a lot of encoding effort lost. > No need for a massive flamefest, I'm just a little curious.... :) No offense taken at all. I appreciate your ideas, thanks! Regards, -Kris From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 2 20:06:09 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Martin Ebourne) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:06:09 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source In-Reply-To: <43189996.2050909@robshepherd.net> References: <20050901145620.sebvbyklo8w4sw08@webmail.section6.net> <43189996.2050909@robshepherd.net> Message-ID: <1125687969.22631.14.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 19:27 +0100, Mr R G Shepherd wrote: > I know this is completely OT but is boxbackup the best choice of backup solution > for this type of client? I see the point of box backup for many potential > circumstances but I fail to see what this setup requires from box backup. > > Would a weekly rsync not be more appropriate unless you really need to encrypt > your mp3s of course... I can't speak for Kristopher, but I do pretty much exactly the same thing myself. I use box backup to backup audio files from one harddisk to another on the same machine. Why? 1. I'm using box anyway for other cross machine and remote backups, so it's all set up. 2. Box is easy to use with the command line client. 3. It stores old versions and deleted files, which rsync won't handle so well. 4. Using patches it also supports ACLs (which I use to control access on my music). I'd love to back the whole lot up to my offsite location, but unfortunately it would take months even for the initial upload at current ADSL upload rates. More to the point, I've not seen any reason not to use box backup - apart from the unnecessary SSL and encryption, which really don't do any harm. > I would have thought an archive procedure onto removeable media would be a > better choice. But then I guess some youngsters don't have the benefit of an > acetate/vinyl hard copy of their entertainment media... re reading your post I > see you have taken your audio off CD's - why increase the media requirements for > these? In my case it took me months to rip all my CDs to start with and I don't intend to do them ever again, hence they need to be backed up. I dare say that Kristopher has the same feeling. Kristopher, anyway the good news is that it works fine for me, and doesn't take excessive disk space so it's perfectly fixable once the problem has been discovered. I have a similar amount of music backed up in this way. You haven't renamed the backup location or similar have you? Maybe that would cause stuff to be uploaded twice? Cheers, Martin. From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 2 20:12:26 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Mr R G Shepherd) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:12:26 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source In-Reply-To: <20050902114611.8xiigd7hc0sw80w8@webmail.section6.net> References: <20050901145620.sebvbyklo8w4sw08@webmail.section6.net> <43189996.2050909@robshepherd.net> <20050902114611.8xiigd7hc0sw80w8@webmail.section6.net> Message-ID: <4318A41A.60204@robshepherd.net> Kristopher Zentner wrote: > One word: iPod. > > That, and I have a computer acting as a media center so I don't have to > deal > with loading and unloading plastic. It's very nice not having to go through > about 500 cds to get what I want. Backups are nice to have of all this of > course since a drive failure, or inadvertent rm renders a lot of encoding > effort lost. > Of course, I meant duplication of the duplicate :) You've already duplicated the data by taking it off plastic for the media centre, which is the best idea totally as far as i'm concerned (speaking as a music lover). However if the media centre goes arse up, you've still got the plastic original, In fact, regarding a friend of mine, his kids have rarely seen a commercial issue Compact disk, Every time the family gets a CD or DVD, he creates a duplicate, (printed photo cover the lot), rips the data to the MythTV hard disk for his own purposes and puts the original in the loft. I've seen CD's half-buried in the garden and toast(with jam) in a DVD case but he doesn't care..... quite rightly so, if they destroy one, he makes another duplicate (usually from hard disk)... Rob From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 2 20:13:20 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Kristopher Zentner) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:13:20 -0700 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source In-Reply-To: <1125687969.22631.14.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> References: <20050901145620.sebvbyklo8w4sw08@webmail.section6.net> <43189996.2050909@robshepherd.net> <1125687969.22631.14.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> Message-ID: <20050902121320.26j2e8qyo04ow8cw@webmail.section6.net> Quoting Martin Ebourne : > You haven't renamed the backup location or similar have you? Maybe that > would cause stuff to be uploaded twice? > I was looking through the conf again and I think this is the case. I had a directory in there that also belongs to a parent directory of another Location. I'm going to try this again and I'm suspecting this problem may just be one big pebkac, ouch. Thanks again for all the help guys. -Kris From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 2 21:03:11 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Gary) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Box Backup] Coding standards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050902200311.68409.qmail@web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Ben, > Better people than I have explained in depth why operator overloading > is a Bad Thing. Not a problem, if you guys decide to merge in my changes with the main core, I will be happy to recode a bit to get rid of the operators - a minor change, given the serialization class stays in. > it would be appreciated by everyone to have a consistent style, but > how this is achieved is up to the individual. (As long as it doesn't > create spurious diffs in source control.) Good point about the diffs. G. ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Sat Sep 3 08:36:13 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:36:13 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup with far more space used than source In-Reply-To: <20050902121320.26j2e8qyo04ow8cw@webmail.section6.net> References: <20050901145620.sebvbyklo8w4sw08@webmail.section6.net> <43189996.2050909@robshepherd.net> <1125687969.22631.14.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> <20050902121320.26j2e8qyo04ow8cw@webmail.section6.net> Message-ID: On 2 Sep 2005, at 20:13, Kristopher Zentner wrote: > Quoting Martin Ebourne : > > > >> You haven't renamed the backup location or similar have you? Maybe >> that >> would cause stuff to be uploaded twice? >> >> > > I was looking through the conf again and I think this is the case. > I had a > directory in there that also belongs to a parent directory of > another Location. > I'm going to try this again and I'm suspecting this problem may > just be one big > pebkac, ouch. Thanks again for all the help guys. This is why I was suggesting you logged in with bbackupquery and looked at exactly what was being stored on the server. At least we know the problem now! Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Sat Sep 3 14:55:18 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Mikael Syska) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:55:18 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] BB on Fedora Core4 /w GCC4 Message-ID: <4319AB46.1050501@syska.dk> Hi, I'm trying to install BoxBacup on Fodora Core4, and gets some errors..... GCC Version: [root at server syska]# gcc --version gcc (GCC) 4.0.0 20050519 (Red Hat 4.0.0-8) Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. [root at server boxbackup-0.09]# ./configure Box build environment setup. Checking environment... Compiler 1: yes Compiler 2: yes OpenSSL 1: yes OpenSSL 2: yes curses: yes ncurses: yes Linux LFS support: yes USE_MALLOC: yes Checking db version... Check readline from readline/readline.h... Check readline from mysql/readline.h... Checking db version... Finished checking headers done [root at server boxbackup-0.09]# make [root at server boxbackup-0.09]# make mkdir parcels/boxbackup-0.09-backup-client-Linux (cd bin/bbackupd; make RELEASE=1) make[1]: Entering directory `/home/syska/boxbackup-0.09/bin/bbackupd' g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c BackupClientDeleteList.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupClientDeleteList.o In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, from BackupClientDeleteList.cpp:49: /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private kernel header; include instead! g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c BackupClientInodeToIDMap.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupClientInodeToIDMap.o In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, from BackupClientInodeToIDMap.cpp:49: /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private kernel header; include instead! g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c BackupClientDirectoryRecord.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupClientDirectoryRecord.o In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, from BackupClientDirectoryRecord.cpp:49: /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private kernel header; include instead! g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c BackupClientContext.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupClientContext.o In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, from BackupClientContext.cpp:49: /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private kernel header; include instead! g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c bbackupd.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/bbackupd.o In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, from bbackupd.cpp:49: /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private kernel header; include instead! g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c BackupDaemon.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupDaemon.o In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, from BackupDaemon.cpp:49: /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private kernel header; include instead! ........ ........ ........ Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp:174: error: expected `;' before ???hsReceive??? Protocol.cpp:175: error: ???hsReceive??? was not declared in this scope Protocol.cpp:181: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp: In member function ???void Protocol::CheckAndReadHdr(void*)???: Protocol.cpp:225: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp: In member function ???std::auto_ptr Protocol::Receive()???: Protocol.cpp:266: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp: In member function ???void Protocol::Send(const ProtocolObject&)???: Protocol.cpp:359: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp:360: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp: In member function ???void Protocol::SendStream(IOStream&)???: Protocol.cpp:716: error: incomplete type ???IOStream??? used in nested name specifier Protocol.cpp:716: error: expected `;' before ???streamSize??? Protocol.cpp:717: error: ???streamSize??? was not declared in this scope Protocol.cpp:717: error: incomplete type ???IOStream??? used in nested name specifier Protocol.cpp:725: error: ???streamSize??? was not declared in this scope Protocol.cpp:733: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp:750: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp:753: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp:767: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp:781: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp:787: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.cpp: In member function ???int Protocol::SendStreamSendBlock(u_int8_t*, int)???: Protocol.cpp:835: error: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.0.0/../../../../include/c++/4.0.0/memory: In destructor ???std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::~auto_ptr() [with _Tp = IOStream]???: Protocol.cpp:689: instantiated from here /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.0.0/../../../../include/c++/4.0.0/memory:259: warning: possible problem detected in invocation of delete operator: /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.0.0/../../../../include/c++/4.0.0/memory:259: warning: invalid use of undefined type ???struct IOStream??? Protocol.h:54: warning: forward declaration of ???struct IOStream??? /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.0.0/../../../../include/c++/4.0.0/memory:259: note: neither the destructor nor the class-specific operator delete will be called, even if they are declared when the class is defined. make[2]: *** [../../release/lib/server/Protocol.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/syska/boxbackup-0.09/lib/server' make[1]: *** [dep_modules] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/syska/boxbackup-0.09/bin/bbackupd' make: *** [parcels/boxbackup-0.09-backup-client-Linux.tgz] Error 2 [root at server boxbackup-0.09]# and now i'm totally lost... what does these errors mean? Are there any thing more I need to install? I will gladly supply additional information if needed.... best regards Mikael Syska From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Sat Sep 3 16:04:56 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:04:56 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] BB on Fedora Core4 /w GCC4 In-Reply-To: <4319AB46.1050501@syska.dk> References: <4319AB46.1050501@syska.dk> Message-ID: <5B881624-C330-4D66-BCAF-65B83322F639@fluffy.co.uk> You need to do this ./configure compile:-DPLATFORM_GCC3 for gcc4 platforms. Next release sorts this out. Ben On 3 Sep 2005, at 14:55, Mikael Syska wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to install BoxBacup on Fodora Core4, and gets some =20 > errors..... > > GCC Version: > [root at server syska]# gcc --version > gcc (GCC) 4.0.0 20050519 (Red Hat 4.0.0-8) > Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There =20= > is NO > warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR =20 > PURPOSE. > > [root at server boxbackup-0.09]# ./configure > Box build environment setup. > > Checking environment... > Compiler 1: yes > Compiler 2: yes > OpenSSL 1: yes > OpenSSL 2: yes > curses: yes > ncurses: yes > Linux LFS support: yes > USE_MALLOC: yes > Checking db version... > Check readline from readline/readline.h... > Check readline from mysql/readline.h... > Checking db version... > Finished checking headers > done > > [root at server boxbackup-0.09]# make > [root at server boxbackup-0.09]# make > mkdir parcels/boxbackup-0.09-backup-client-Linux > (cd bin/bbackupd; make RELEASE=3D1) > make[1]: Entering directory `/home/syska/boxbackup-0.09/bin/bbackupd' > g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -=20 > I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -=20 > DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION=3D"\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=3D64 -c = =20 > BackupClientDeleteList.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/=20 > BackupClientDeleteList.o > In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, > from BackupClientDeleteList.cpp:49: > /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private =20 > kernel header; include instead! > g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -=20 > I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -=20 > DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION=3D"\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=3D64 -c = =20 > BackupClientInodeToIDMap.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/=20 > BackupClientInodeToIDMap.o > In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, > from BackupClientInodeToIDMap.cpp:49: > /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private =20 > kernel header; include instead! > g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -=20 > I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -=20 > DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION=3D"\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=3D64 -c = =20 > BackupClientDirectoryRecord.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/=20 > BackupClientDirectoryRecord.o > In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, > from BackupClientDirectoryRecord.cpp:49: > /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private =20 > kernel header; include instead! > g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -=20 > I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -=20 > DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION=3D"\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=3D64 -c = =20 > BackupClientContext.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/=20 > BackupClientContext.o > In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, > from BackupClientContext.cpp:49: > /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private =20 > kernel header; include instead! > g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -=20 > I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -=20 > DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION=3D"\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=3D64 -c = =20 > bbackupd.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/bbackupd.o > In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, > from bbackupd.cpp:49: > /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private =20 > kernel header; include instead! > g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -=20 > I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -=20 > DPLATFORM_LINUX -DBOX_VERSION=3D"\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=3D64 -c = =20 > BackupDaemon.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupDaemon.o > In file included from ../../lib/common/Box.h:183, > from BackupDaemon.cpp:49: > /usr/include/asm/byteorder.h:6:2: warning: #warning using private =20 > kernel header; include instead! > ........ > ........ > ........ > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp:174: error: expected `;' before =E2=80=98hsReceive=E2=80=99= > Protocol.cpp:175: error: =E2=80=98hsReceive=E2=80=99 was not declared = in this =20 > scope > Protocol.cpp:181: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp: In member function =E2=80=98void = Protocol::CheckAndReadHdr=20 > (void*)=E2=80=99: > Protocol.cpp:225: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp: In member function =E2=80=98std::auto_ptr = =20 > Protocol::Receive()=E2=80=99: > Protocol.cpp:266: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp: In member function =E2=80=98void Protocol::Send(const =20= > ProtocolObject&)=E2=80=99: > Protocol.cpp:359: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp:360: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp: In member function =E2=80=98void Protocol::SendStream=20 > (IOStream&)=E2=80=99: > Protocol.cpp:716: error: incomplete type =E2=80=98IOStream=E2=80=99 = used in =20 > nested name specifier > Protocol.cpp:716: error: expected `;' before =E2=80=98streamSize=E2=80=99= > Protocol.cpp:717: error: =E2=80=98streamSize=E2=80=99 was not declared = in this =20 > scope > Protocol.cpp:717: error: incomplete type =E2=80=98IOStream=E2=80=99 = used in =20 > nested name specifier > Protocol.cpp:725: error: =E2=80=98streamSize=E2=80=99 was not declared = in this =20 > scope > Protocol.cpp:733: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp:750: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp:753: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp:767: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp:781: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp:787: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.cpp: In member function =E2=80=98int =20 > Protocol::SendStreamSendBlock(u_int8_t*, int)=E2=80=99: > Protocol.cpp:835: error: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct = =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: error: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.0.0/../../../../include/c++/4.0.0/=20 > memory: In destructor =E2=80=98std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::~auto_ptr() [with = _Tp =20 > =3D IOStream]=E2=80=99: > Protocol.cpp:689: instantiated from here > /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.0.0/../../../../include/c++/4.0.0/=20 > memory:259: warning: possible problem detected in invocation of =20 > delete operator: > /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.0.0/../../../../include/c++/4.0.0/=20 > memory:259: warning: invalid use of undefined type =E2=80=98struct =20 > IOStream=E2=80=99 > Protocol.h:54: warning: forward declaration of =E2=80=98struct = IOStream=E2=80=99 > /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.0.0/../../../../include/c++/4.0.0/=20 > memory:259: note: neither the destructor nor the class-specific =20 > operator delete will be called, even if they are declared when the =20 > class is defined. > make[2]: *** [../../release/lib/server/Protocol.o] Error 1 > make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/syska/boxbackup-0.09/lib/server' > make[1]: *** [dep_modules] Error 2 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/syska/boxbackup-0.09/bin/bbackupd' > make: *** [parcels/boxbackup-0.09-backup-client-Linux.tgz] Error 2 > [root at server boxbackup-0.09]# > > and now i'm totally lost... what does these errors mean? Are there =20 > any thing more I need to install? > > I will gladly supply additional information if needed.... > > best regards > Mikael Syska > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Mon Sep 5 09:29:06 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Nick Knight) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:29:06 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Win32 Client State Message-ID: Hello, There is only mine and the cygwin that I am aware that are out there. It is in development - mainly bug fixing at the moment - but this is when I have time! Happy to take on volunteers to help out? Although it is effectively in beta - I use it on a number of server's very successfully. -----Original Message----- From: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mikael Syska Sent: 29 August 2005 19:40 To: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Subject: [Box Backup] Win32 Client State Hey, What are the state of the win32 client(s)? Are there any news or work-in-progress information for the public boxbackup users? Getting more and more afraid of loosing data from my win32 workstation.... so wanting to start backup up some of the data soon..... Are there only Nick's win32 port or are there others out there? // ouT _______________________________________________ boxbackup mailing list boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Mon Sep 5 14:04:02 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Mikael Syska) Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:04:02 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Win32 Client State In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <431C4242.2020903@syska.dk> Hej, Can't you set up a site for the project so its also easy to know, what the lastest version is... right now its the "h" version or??? I would help, but I aint very good at C/C++ or what ever language its made in, only C# here... but maybe sometime I will learn some more C/C++.... also here to help :-) // ouT Nick Knight wrote: >Hello, > >There is only mine and the cygwin that I am aware that are out there. > >It is in development - mainly bug fixing at the moment - but this is >when I have time! Happy to take on volunteers to help out? > >Although it is effectively in beta - I use it on a number of server's >very successfully. > >-----Original Message----- >From: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk] >On Behalf Of Mikael Syska >Sent: 29 August 2005 19:40 >To: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk >Subject: [Box Backup] Win32 Client State > >Hey, >What are the state of the win32 client(s)? Are there any news or >work-in-progress information for the public boxbackup users? >Getting more and more afraid of loosing data from my win32 >workstation.... so wanting to start backup up some of the data soon..... >Are there only Nick's win32 port or are there others out there? >// ouT > >_______________________________________________ >boxbackup mailing list >boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk >http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > > >_______________________________________________ >boxbackup mailing list >boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk >http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > > From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Wed Sep 7 22:00:20 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Kai) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:00:20 +1200 Subject: [Box Backup] Boxi and boxbackup question. Message-ID: Just a quick question about the Boxi client. I'm having a bit of an issue with it under windows. I've installed it. Got my account set up on the server, but whenever I start the boxi program I get the following. Exception thrown: ConnectionException(Conn_SocketConnectError) at SocketStream.cpp(184) Looking in the "Backup Process" tab I see my connection error as "Socket connection refused." Is this the sever refusing connection (it doesn't appear to be seeing anything on inbound tcpdump) or the local program being unable to bind to a socket on the windows box it's on. If so any idea why that might be? Chris From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 08:16:33 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Mr R G Shepherd) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:16:33 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Boxi and boxbackup question. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <431FE551.3060708@robshepherd.net> Kai wrote: > Is this the sever refusing connection (it doesn't appear to be seeing > anything on inbound tcpdump) or the local program being unable to bind to a > socket on the windows box it's on. If so any idea why that might be? > You can check the server is listening on a TCP port using 'lsof' Rob From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 08:55:55 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:55:55 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and re-including directory Message-ID: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4C@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> Hi, I excluded one of my directories in bbackupd.conf. As a result of this, = the server marks all the files in this folder as deleted (seems = logical).=20 Later I removed the ExcludeDir line from the configuration file and = restarted the service on the client machine. But now, nothing is being = backed up anymore from this directory. I created some new files but they = aren't being stored on the server. Am I forgetting something ? -- Eelco=20 From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 09:09:57 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:09:57 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and re-including directory In-Reply-To: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4C@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> References: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4C@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> Message-ID: On 8 Sep 2005, at 08:55, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > Hi, > > I excluded one of my directories in bbackupd.conf. As a result of > this, the server marks all the files in this folder as deleted > (seems logical). > > Later I removed the ExcludeDir line from the configuration file and > restarted the service on the client machine. But now, nothing is > being backed up anymore from this directory. I created some new > files but they aren't being stored on the server. Am I forgetting > something ? How long have you been waiting? Remember that in lazy mode, the server will wait about 6 hours (by default) after noticing a new file before uploading it. Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 09:36:08 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:36:08 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and re-including directory Message-ID: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4D@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> 8 days .. Normally new files are notices within the hour. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk]Namens Ben Summers Verzonden: donderdag 8 september 2005 10:10 Aan: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Onderwerp: Re: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and re-including directory On 8 Sep 2005, at 08:55, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > Hi, > > I excluded one of my directories in bbackupd.conf. As a result of =20 > this, the server marks all the files in this folder as deleted =20 > (seems logical). > > Later I removed the ExcludeDir line from the configuration file and =20 > restarted the service on the client machine. But now, nothing is =20 > being backed up anymore from this directory. I created some new =20 > files but they aren't being stored on the server. Am I forgetting =20 > something ? How long have you been waiting? Remember that in lazy mode, the =20 server will wait about 6 hours (by default) after noticing a new file =20 before uploading it. Ben _______________________________________________ boxbackup mailing list boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 09:43:16 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:43:16 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and re-including directory In-Reply-To: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4D@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> References: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4D@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> Message-ID: Is there anything interesting in the logs? Try turning on ExtendedLogging and see what happens on the first run afterwards. Ben On 8 Sep 2005, at 09:36, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > 8 days .. > > Normally new files are notices within the hour. > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk > [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk]Namens Ben Summers > Verzonden: donderdag 8 september 2005 10:10 > Aan: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > Onderwerp: Re: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and > re-including directory > > > > On 8 Sep 2005, at 08:55, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > > >> Hi, >> >> I excluded one of my directories in bbackupd.conf. As a result of >> this, the server marks all the files in this folder as deleted >> (seems logical). >> >> Later I removed the ExcludeDir line from the configuration file and >> restarted the service on the client machine. But now, nothing is >> being backed up anymore from this directory. I created some new >> files but they aren't being stored on the server. Am I forgetting >> something ? >> > > How long have you been waiting? Remember that in lazy mode, the > server will wait about 6 hours (by default) after noticing a new file > before uploading it. > > Ben > > > > > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 10:14:20 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 11:14:20 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and re-including directory Message-ID: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4E@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> I think I found it. It marked the directory itself as deleted and = created a new one containing the files. But, when I 'cd' into this folder, it enters the deleted one: 000167c1 -dX--- eelco 0001953f -d---- eelco 'cd eelco' will open 000167c1. How can I get into the other one ? -- Eelco -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk]Namens Ben Summers Verzonden: donderdag 8 september 2005 10:43 Aan: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Onderwerp: Re: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and re-including directory Is there anything interesting in the logs? Try turning on ExtendedLogging and see what happens on the first run =20 afterwards. Ben On 8 Sep 2005, at 09:36, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > 8 days .. > > Normally new files are notices within the hour. > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk > [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk]Namens Ben Summers > Verzonden: donderdag 8 september 2005 10:10 > Aan: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > Onderwerp: Re: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and > re-including directory > > > > On 8 Sep 2005, at 08:55, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > > >> Hi, >> >> I excluded one of my directories in bbackupd.conf. As a result of >> this, the server marks all the files in this folder as deleted >> (seems logical). >> >> Later I removed the ExcludeDir line from the configuration file and >> restarted the service on the client machine. But now, nothing is >> being backed up anymore from this directory. I created some new >> files but they aren't being stored on the server. Am I forgetting >> something ? >> > > How long have you been waiting? Remember that in lazy mode, the > server will wait about 6 hours (by default) after noticing a new file > before uploading it. > > Ben > > > > > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > _______________________________________________ boxbackup mailing list boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 10:32:36 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:32:36 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and re-including directory In-Reply-To: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4E@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> References: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4E@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> Message-ID: Sounds like a bit of a bug. Can you post the exact sequence of commands you're using to bbackupquery, including the options etc? The immediate workaround would be to reduce the soft limit on the server to something so low it wipes out all old and deleted files, then after housekeeping as sorted it out, put the soft limit back. Ben On 8 Sep 2005, at 10:14, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > I think I found it. It marked the directory itself as deleted and > created a new one containing the files. > > But, when I 'cd' into this folder, it enters the deleted one: > > 000167c1 -dX--- eelco > 0001953f -d---- eelco > > 'cd eelco' will open 000167c1. How can I get into the other one ? > > -- > > Eelco > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk > [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk]Namens Ben Summers > Verzonden: donderdag 8 september 2005 10:43 > Aan: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > Onderwerp: Re: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and > re-including directory > > > > Is there anything interesting in the logs? > > Try turning on ExtendedLogging and see what happens on the first run > afterwards. > > Ben > > > > On 8 Sep 2005, at 09:36, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > > >> 8 days .. >> >> Normally new files are notices within the hour. >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk >> [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk]Namens Ben Summers >> Verzonden: donderdag 8 september 2005 10:10 >> Aan: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk >> Onderwerp: Re: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and >> re-including directory >> >> >> >> On 8 Sep 2005, at 08:55, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I excluded one of my directories in bbackupd.conf. As a result of >>> this, the server marks all the files in this folder as deleted >>> (seems logical). >>> >>> Later I removed the ExcludeDir line from the configuration file and >>> restarted the service on the client machine. But now, nothing is >>> being backed up anymore from this directory. I created some new >>> files but they aren't being stored on the server. Am I forgetting >>> something ? >>> >>> >> >> How long have you been waiting? Remember that in lazy mode, the >> server will wait about 6 hours (by default) after noticing a new file >> before uploading it. >> >> Ben >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> boxbackup mailing list >> boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk >> http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup >> _______________________________________________ >> boxbackup mailing list >> boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk >> http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 11:03:28 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:03:28 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and re-including directory Message-ID: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4F@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> I'm sorry Ben, "cd eelco" will get me into the correct dir. My mistake. When running bbackupquery and command from the command-line the = following happens: bbackupquery -q "list -rotd /home/eelco" quit outputs the deleted homedir 000167c1 bbackupquery -q "list -rot /home/eelco" quit outputs homedir 0001953f Which seems correct to me. Only "annoying" thing is that there are 2 different homedirs in the = store. Maybe I'll use the soft-limit to get them away since this is not = a practical situation. Maybe (?) it's an idea not to mark files as = deleted when the dir is excluded in the conf later. In that way, = temporarely excluding a dir won't result in having this problem. The = server should just ignore that dir and its contents.=20 -- Eelco -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk]Namens Ben Summers Verzonden: donderdag 8 september 2005 11:33 Aan: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Onderwerp: Re: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and re-including directory Sounds like a bit of a bug. Can you post the exact sequence of =20 commands you're using to bbackupquery, including the options etc? The immediate workaround would be to reduce the soft limit on the =20 server to something so low it wipes out all old and deleted files, =20 then after housekeeping as sorted it out, put the soft limit back. Ben On 8 Sep 2005, at 10:14, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > I think I found it. It marked the directory itself as deleted and =20 > created a new one containing the files. > > But, when I 'cd' into this folder, it enters the deleted one: > > 000167c1 -dX--- eelco > 0001953f -d---- eelco > > 'cd eelco' will open 000167c1. How can I get into the other one ? > > -- > > Eelco > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk > [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk]Namens Ben Summers > Verzonden: donderdag 8 september 2005 10:43 > Aan: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > Onderwerp: Re: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and > re-including directory > > > > Is there anything interesting in the logs? > > Try turning on ExtendedLogging and see what happens on the first run > afterwards. > > Ben > > > > On 8 Sep 2005, at 09:36, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > > >> 8 days .. >> >> Normally new files are notices within the hour. >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk >> [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk]Namens Ben Summers >> Verzonden: donderdag 8 september 2005 10:10 >> Aan: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk >> Onderwerp: Re: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and >> re-including directory >> >> >> >> On 8 Sep 2005, at 08:55, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I excluded one of my directories in bbackupd.conf. As a result of >>> this, the server marks all the files in this folder as deleted >>> (seems logical). >>> >>> Later I removed the ExcludeDir line from the configuration file and >>> restarted the service on the client machine. But now, nothing is >>> being backed up anymore from this directory. I created some new >>> files but they aren't being stored on the server. Am I forgetting >>> something ? >>> >>> >> >> How long have you been waiting? Remember that in lazy mode, the >> server will wait about 6 hours (by default) after noticing a new file >> before uploading it. >> >> Ben >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> boxbackup mailing list >> boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk >> http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup >> _______________________________________________ >> boxbackup mailing list >> boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk >> http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > _______________________________________________ boxbackup mailing list boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 11:11:10 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Martin Ebourne) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:11:10 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding and re-including directory In-Reply-To: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4F@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> References: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E4F@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> Message-ID: <1126174271.5845.8.camel@avenin.ebourne.me.uk> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 12:03 +0200, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > Only "annoying" thing is that there are 2 different homedirs in the > store. Maybe I'll use the soft-limit to get them away since this is > not a practical situation. Maybe (?) it's an idea not to mark files as > deleted when the dir is excluded in the conf later. In that way, > temporarely excluding a dir won't result in having this problem. The > server should just ignore that dir and its contents. That one's difficult, because I can well imagine you'd want to mark the stuff deleted when excluded. eg. I find a store is using too much space, realise there's a subdirectory of big stuff I don't want backed up, so put an exclude in. Then you want the stuff marked deleted. Cheers, Martin. From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 11:32:53 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:32:53 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding andre-including directory Message-ID: <2F58FC208238544980915B1BEB3B2C4E02256E50@hq-ex002.local.paradigit.nl> In that case I would just create a new dir, exclude this one and move = all the big stuff in it. -- Eelco -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk]Namens Martin Ebourne Verzonden: donderdag 8 september 2005 12:11 Aan: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Onderwerp: RE: [Box Backup] Backup not working after excluding andre-including directory On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 12:03 +0200, Eelco Leenen / Paradigit Hoofdkantoor wrote: > Only "annoying" thing is that there are 2 different homedirs in the > store. Maybe I'll use the soft-limit to get them away since this is > not a practical situation. Maybe (?) it's an idea not to mark files as > deleted when the dir is excluded in the conf later. In that way, > temporarely excluding a dir won't result in having this problem. The > server should just ignore that dir and its contents.=20 That one's difficult, because I can well imagine you'd want to mark the stuff deleted when excluded. eg. I find a store is using too much space, realise there's a subdirectory of big stuff I don't want backed up, so put an exclude in. Then you want the stuff marked deleted. Cheers, Martin. _______________________________________________ boxbackup mailing list boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 19:57:36 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Chris Wilson) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:57:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] Boxi and boxbackup question. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Kai, > Just a quick question about the Boxi client. I'm having a bit of an issue > with it under windows. I've installed it. Got my account set up on the > server, but whenever I start the boxi program I get the following. > > Exception thrown: ConnectionException(Conn_SocketConnectError) at > SocketStream.cpp(184) > > Looking in the "Backup Process" tab I see my connection error as "Socket > connection refused." > > Is this the sever refusing connection (it doesn't appear to be seeing > anything on inbound tcpdump) or the local program being unable to bind to a > socket on the windows box it's on. If so any idea why that might be? Are you using the win32 port of Box Backup? Boxi currently isn't compatible with it, since Boxi uses a named pipe, and the win32 client uses a TCP port for communication. Sorry. I recommend you use the version of Box Backup that comes with Boxi, for now. If you're using the version of Box Backup that comes with Boxi, check your Windows event viewer for startup errors from Box Backup. What happens when you click the Start button? Is the Box Backup process running? (check for bbackupd.exe in Task Manager). Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 21:47:18 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Kai) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:47:18 +1200 Subject: [Box Backup] Boxi and boxbackup question. In-Reply-To: <431FE551.3060708@robshepherd.net> Message-ID: Ha! This is what I get for testing at work. The HR dept had slipped a firewall covering ports over 1024 into the staff network without telling us. Worked fine from home. Still a lot of issues with config, restore etc but looking good. > -----Original Message----- > From: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk] > On Behalf Of Mr R G Shepherd > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 7:17 PM > To: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > Subject: Re: [Box Backup] Boxi and boxbackup question. > > Kai wrote: > > Is this the sever refusing connection (it doesn't appear to be seeing > > anything on inbound tcpdump) or the local program being unable to bind > to a > > socket on the windows box it's on. If so any idea why that might be? > > > > You can check the server is listening on a TCP port using 'lsof' > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 21:59:57 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Kai) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:59:57 +1200 Subject: [Box Backup] Boxi and boxbackup question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was using the boxbackup that comes with boxi.. it turned out to be a firewall issue. (I should always look for the simple stuff first). Still having issues with the actual backup/resotre. I see boxi boxbackup start, On the server I see it login an immediately log out... then boxi tries to initialize a sync but backupd is logged out by this stage so I get a failed sync. I haven't had a chance to properly debug this yet... will look at it tonight. Having a seperate problem with restore. I run the program, can browse the remote store. I select a file, chose restore and the save as window pops up (just a side here.. the save as box comes up empty and I have to manually type the file name in.. is this a feature or a bug?) I chose a filename, it pauses and then says "restore complete". The problem is the restored file is the right size but it is complete garbage. It just looks like random line noise. Not fun. :) As I said tho I'll play with it some more tonight. > -----Original Message----- > From: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk] > On Behalf Of Chris Wilson > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 6:58 AM > To: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > Subject: Re: [Box Backup] Boxi and boxbackup question. > > Hi Kai, > > > Just a quick question about the Boxi client. I'm having a bit of an > issue > > with it under windows. I've installed it. Got my account set up on the > > server, but whenever I start the boxi program I get the following. > > > > Exception thrown: ConnectionException(Conn_SocketConnectError) at > > SocketStream.cpp(184) > > > > Looking in the "Backup Process" tab I see my connection error as "Socket > > connection refused." > > > > Is this the sever refusing connection (it doesn't appear to be seeing > > anything on inbound tcpdump) or the local program being unable to bind > to a > > socket on the windows box it's on. If so any idea why that might be? > > Are you using the win32 port of Box Backup? Boxi currently isn't > compatible with it, since Boxi uses a named pipe, and the win32 client > uses a TCP port for communication. Sorry. I recommend you use the version > of Box Backup that comes with Boxi, for now. > > If you're using the version of Box Backup that comes with Boxi, check your > Windows event viewer for startup errors from Box Backup. What happens when > you click the Start button? Is the Box Backup process running? (check for > bbackupd.exe in Task Manager). > > Cheers, Chris. > -- > _ ___ __ _ > / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | > / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | > \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | > > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 22:54:31 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Chris Wilson) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:54:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] Boxi and boxbackup question. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Kai, > I was using the boxbackup that comes with boxi.. it turned out to be a > firewall issue. (I should always look for the simple stuff first). Sorry, I know that error message should be more helpful. I have added it to my TODO list. > Still having issues with the actual backup/resotre. Sorry to hear that. :-( > I see boxi boxbackup start, On the server I see it login an immediately log > out... then boxi tries to initialize a sync but backupd is logged out by > this stage so I get a failed sync. > > I haven't had a chance to properly debug this yet... will look at it > tonight. If bbackupd is not logged in when a sync is requested, then it should log in automatically. You could try using the "bbackupctl sync" command from the command line, without Boxi running, and see if that works. If not, then it's probably not a Boxi bug. Also, if you did anything with Boxi that required write access to the server (such as deleting or undeleting files), it will probably be logged in with write access. This might prevent bbackupd from getting the write access that it needs. You will probably find errors in the server and client logs to this effect. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an easy way for Boxi to back down gracefully from its write connection, and disconnecting and reconnecting twice for every write operation would be very slow - but might be the only option. I've also > Having a seperate problem with restore. I run the program, can browse the > remote store. I select a file, chose restore and the save as window pops up > (just a side here.. the save as box comes up empty and I have to manually > type the file name in.. is this a feature or a bug?) I chose a filename, it > pauses and then says "restore complete". The problem is the restored file is > the right size but it is complete garbage. It just looks like random line > noise. Not fun. :) I just tested restoring a file using 0.1.0 on Linux and it works (although it was a very small file). The restore code is actually ripped straight out of bbackupquery, so I'm surprised that it doesn't work. Could you try restoring the same file with the bbackupquery command line tool? If the file is still corrupted, then it could be that your private key file is wrong. I don't think Box Backup provides any way to detect this - it just silently restores corrupt data - but I could be wrong. I seem to remember other bbackupd (not Boxi) users reporting similar issues in the past. If the command line client also fails, could you try restoring the file using a pristine (not patched) copy of bbackupquery on a Unix box? If that works, then it's probably due to the patches I made to bbackupquery, although the reason isn't immediately obvious to me. It could also be something wrong with the way that the bbackupquery code (and hence mine) works under Cygwin. If it works on the pristine copy, please could you send me more details about the file, especially its size? I haven't tested with any large files. Also, please could you try restoring a whole directory - the code is quite different for that. > As I said tho I'll play with it some more tonight. Please do, and let me know how it goes, although please note that I will be away on a training course for a week from Sunday, and not able to respond to email during that time. Thanks for trying out Boxi, and I'm sorry it's not working for you yet! Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 8 23:59:08 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Kai) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:59:08 +1200 Subject: [Box Backup] Boxi and boxbackup question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > I was using the boxbackup that comes with boxi.. it turned out to be a > > firewall issue. (I should always look for the simple stuff first). > > Sorry, I know that error message should be more helpful. I have added it > to my TODO list. No problem. :) It's something I should have thought of the second I saw the socket error but saw no inbound packets on my server. > If bbackupd is not logged in when a sync is requested, then it should log > in automatically. You could try using the "bbackupctl sync" command from > the command line, without Boxi running, and see if that works. If > not, then it's probably not a Boxi bug. Hrmm I also have the windows version of boxbackup installed and that works fine when run from the command line. I haven't tried manually running the version supplied with Boxi, will try that tonight. > Also, if you did anything with Boxi that required write access to the > server (such as deleting or undeleting files), it will probably be logged > in with write access. This might prevent bbackupd from getting the write > access that it needs. You will probably find errors in the server and > client logs to this effect. I made sure I was tailing the logs on the server while using boxi. When I go to the "Backup Process" tab and click "start" I see the following on the server : Sep 8 18:21:54 dreams bbstored[29065]: Certificate CN: BACKUP-256 Sep 8 18:21:54 dreams bbstored[29065]: Login: Client ID 00000256, Read/Write Sep 8 18:21:54 dreams bbstored[29065]: Session finished So it appears to log in and straight back out again. If I hit the Sync button I see the same again (logs in and out immedaitly) and then I get the message "sync failed" in the error box in boxi. > I just tested restoring a file using 0.1.0 on Linux and it works (although > it was a very small file). The restore code is actually ripped straight > out of bbackupquery, so I'm surprised that it doesn't work. Could you try > restoring the same file with the bbackupquery command line tool? Mkay.. I'm still using 0.0.7 because that's the only compiled binary I could find for windows. I'd compile my own copy but I don't have the tools for compiling under windows. To be quite honest I wouldn't even know where to start. I've been using linux most of my life and am very competent on that but know very little about how windows works or how one would compile something on windows. (give me linux anyday) > If the file is still corrupted, then it could be that your private key > file is wrong. I don't think Box Backup provides any way to detect this - > it just silently restores corrupt data - but I could be wrong. I seem to > remember other bbackupd (not Boxi) users reporting similar issues in the > past. The keys are right because if I use the windows version of boxbackup command line (not the one that comes with boxi) then the restore/backup process works perfectly. Personally I would use the command line version but I'm trying to get a system set up for some friends who are windows only people and wouldn't know what to do without a GUI. :) Speaking of the GUI.. every time I start it up I get the error "Couldn't ass an image to the image list". I suspect I'm probably having so many problems because I'm using an older version. > > As I said tho I'll play with it some more tonight. > > Please do, and let me know how it goes, although please note that I will > be away on a training course for a week from Sunday, and not able to > respond to email during that time. No problem. Just really thankful you've been working on a GUI client at all. It will hopefully make my life much easier when hooking Windows friends up to my backup box. > Thanks for trying out Boxi, and I'm sorry it's not working for you yet! NP! From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 9 09:37:40 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Chris Wilson) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:37:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] Boxi and boxbackup question. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Kai, > Hrmm I also have the windows version of boxbackup installed and that works > fine when run from the command line. I haven't tried manually running the > version supplied with Boxi, will try that tonight. Will look into this problem more this evening. > Mkay.. I'm still using 0.0.7 because that's the only compiled binary I could > find for windows. Yes, it is the only one right now. Like you, I do very little Windows development, the windows (cygwin) version of Boxi is much less tested than the Linux version, older, and has more rough edges. > The keys are right because if I use the windows version of boxbackup command > line (not the one that comes with boxi) then the restore/backup process > works perfectly. Personally I would use the command line version but I'm > trying to get a system set up for some friends who are windows only people > and wouldn't know what to do without a GUI. :) Please could you try with the command-line version that comes with Boxi. I'm afraid Boxi is still very experimental and somewhat unstable. It's more of a developers test release than something I would give to an end user right now. > Speaking of the GUI.. every time I start it up I get the error > > "Couldn't ass an image to the image list". I suspect I'm probably having so > many problems because I'm using an older version. One of those rough edges :-) I think this is fixed in CVS, but a number of other things are broken right now so it's in no fit state for release. Cheers, Chris. -- _ ___ __ _ / __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer | \ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software | From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Tue Sep 13 10:18:53 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Maarten van Lieshout) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:18:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Box Backup] backup with mini-itx Message-ID: <59878.62.58.195.244.1126603133.squirrel@webmail.vianetworks.nl> I want to make the first backup of a server using a mini-itx with boxbackup on it. After that the backup-data on this mini-itx should be moved to an another server at our office. The reason I want to do this is that our clients don't have a adsl-line with enough upstream capacity, so the first backup would take ages (considered they have about 20 to 50 GB to backup). What would be the right procedure to do this? Do I have to generate the keys again between the itx and the final backupserver? Regards, -- Maarten From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Tue Sep 13 10:26:53 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:26:53 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] backup with mini-itx In-Reply-To: <59878.62.58.195.244.1126603133.squirrel@webmail.vianetworks.nl> References: <59878.62.58.195.244.1126603133.squirrel@webmail.vianetworks.nl> Message-ID: <5C41A7E2-D632-4412-8264-9B27CC4733C6@fluffy.co.uk> On 13 Sep 2005, at 10:18, Maarten van Lieshout wrote: > I want to make the first backup of a server using a mini-itx with > boxbackup on it. After that the backup-data on this mini-itx should be > moved to an another server at our office. The reason I want to do > this is > that our clients don't have a adsl-line with enough upstream > capacity, so > the first backup would take ages (considered they have about 20 to > 50 GB > to backup). > > What would be the right procedure to do this? Do I have to generate > the > keys again between the itx and the final backupserver? You should generate separate keys for each server, but from the same CA. Both servers should use the same RAID type (ie no RAID or with RAID). The procedure is * Allocate account number * Create account on mini server * Setup client, change hostname in config to IP of mini server * Wait for backup * Stop client, change hostname to main server * Create account on main server (with same account number) * Move files across from mini server * Start client. You should leave the client running on site with the right hostname, as long as you move the files then create the entry in the accounts.txt file manually. This is, of course, slightly more complex. Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Tue Sep 13 21:45:29 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Marshall Buschman) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:45:29 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] archiving the backup-store In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ben: =20 I'm deploying box backup for a corporate client with about 20 workstations= . I'm creating a system whereby the store can be backed up to DVD-RW(s) on some kind of regular interval. I know it's not strictly necessary, but this is for the client's peace of mind. We're moving them off of a tape-backup system and the client needs to be able to take the store home with them at night. =20 So, what would be the best way to approach this? I'm looking for a way to pause the store so that I don't stop it in mid-backup of some file. I need a clean snapshot of the store. =20 Any information would be greatly appreciated. =20 Thanks! =20 Marshall Buschman From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Tue Sep 13 21:55:45 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:55:45 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] archiving the backup-store In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C3549AF-4AF1-46F3-8EF3-C6F1F19DE80C@fluffy.co.uk> On 13 Sep 2005, at 21:45, Marshall Buschman wrote: > Ben: > > I'm deploying box backup for a corporate client with about 20 > workstations. > I'm creating a system whereby the store can be backed up to DVD-RW(s) > on some kind of regular interval. > I know it's not strictly necessary, but this is for the client's > peace of mind. We're moving them off of a tape-backup system and the > client needs to be able to take the store home with them at night. > > So, what would be the best way to approach this? I'm looking for a > way to pause the store so that I don't stop it in mid-backup of some > file. I need a clean snapshot of the store. I would just archive the store, and not worry about making sure it happened when the server was quiet. Data is written in an atomic manner, and even if you do get something a bit out of date it's nothing that bbstoreaccounts can't fix. Try it, and see what happens. Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Tue Sep 13 23:24:48 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Per Thomsen) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:24:48 -0700 Subject: [Box Backup] archiving the backup-store In-Reply-To: <7C3549AF-4AF1-46F3-8EF3-C6F1F19DE80C@fluffy.co.uk> References: <7C3549AF-4AF1-46F3-8EF3-C6F1F19DE80C@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <432751B0.4070502@reedtz.com> On 9/13/05 1:55 PM, Ben Summers wrote: > > On 13 Sep 2005, at 21:45, Marshall Buschman wrote: > >> Ben: >> >> I'm deploying box backup for a corporate client with about 20 >> workstations. >> I'm creating a system whereby the store can be backed up to DVD-RW(s) >> on some kind of regular interval. >> I know it's not strictly necessary, but this is for the client's >> peace of mind. We're moving them off of a tape-backup system and the >> client needs to be able to take the store home with them at night. >> >> So, what would be the best way to approach this? I'm looking for a >> way to pause the store so that I don't stop it in mid-backup of some >> file. I need a clean snapshot of the store. > > > I would just archive the store, and not worry about making sure it > happened when the server was quiet. Data is written in an atomic > manner, and even if you do get something a bit out of date it's > nothing that bbstoreaccounts can't fix. > > Try it, and see what happens. Or, if you really wanted to make sure nothing was happening, you could run backups in snapshot mode, several times throughout the day, but not during the time when the DVD was being written. That way, you can safely shut down bbstored, copy to DVD, and start bbstored again, without any fear of half-backed up files. I agree with Ben, though. You shouldn't see anything bad happen, even if you simply run it, and let the chips fall where they may. Thanks, Per -- Per Reedtz Thomsen | Reedtz Consulting, LLC | F: 209 883 4119 V: 209 883 4102 | pthomsen at reedtz.com | C: 209 996 9561 GPG ID: 1209784F | Yahoo! Chat: pthomsen | AIM: pthomsen From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Thu Sep 15 23:45:37 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Scott McNee) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:45:37 +1000 Subject: [Box Backup] archiving the backup-store In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004101c5ba47$3169f880$0302a8c0@SCOTTLAPTOP> Sorry If this reply is a bit late. But I currently use box-backup in this way. As of yet I have not received any problems. I can pass on what I have learned in Auto-Creation of Multi-Volume ISO's if you wish.=20 Thanks. Thank you =20 -----Original Message----- From: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk] = On Behalf Of Marshall Buschman Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2005 6:45 AM To: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Subject: [Box Backup] archiving the backup-store Ben: =20 I'm deploying box backup for a corporate client with about 20 = workstations. I'm creating a system whereby the store can be backed up to DVD-RW(s) on some kind of regular interval. I know it's not strictly necessary, but = this is for the client's peace of mind. We're moving them off of a = tape-backup system and the client needs to be able to take the store home with them = at night. =20 So, what would be the best way to approach this? I'm looking for a way = to pause the store so that I don't stop it in mid-backup of some file. I = need a clean snapshot of the store. =20 Any information would be greatly appreciated. =20 Thanks! =20 Marshall Buschman _______________________________________________ boxbackup mailing list boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 16 14:11:16 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Nick Knight) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:11:16 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] box backup dieing Message-ID: Hello All, I have on one of my windows 2003 servers running box backup. It dies about once every two days - but I think this is because there is a large 5GB file it gets to and takes its time getting through it. It leaves the following messages: Backup object failed, error when reading C:\backups\exch.bkf. Error code when uploading was (4/11), BackupStore. SSL err during Read: error:1408F455:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_RECORD:decryption failed or bad record mac. SSL err during Read: error:140D2081:SSL routines:TLS1_ENC:block cipher pad is wrong. I have checked the server for errors and it comes back fine - what else could it be?? Thanks Nick From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 16 19:22:28 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Marshall Buschman) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:22:28 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] archiving the backup-store In-Reply-To: <004101c5ba47$3169f880$0302a8c0@SCOTTLAPTOP> References: <004101c5ba47$3169f880$0302a8c0@SCOTTLAPTOP> Message-ID: Scott: That'd be great! Thanks! Marshall On 9/15/05, Scott McNee wrote: > Sorry If this reply is a bit late. >=20 > But I currently use box-backup in this way. As of yet I h= ave > not received any problems. I can pass on what I have learned in > Auto-Creation of Multi-Volume ISO's if you wish. >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > Thank you >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk] = On > Behalf Of Marshall Buschman > Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2005 6:45 AM > To: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > Subject: [Box Backup] archiving the backup-store >=20 >=20 > Ben: >=20 > I'm deploying box backup for a corporate client with about 20 workstatio= ns. > I'm creating a system whereby the store can be backed up to DVD-RW(s) on > some kind of regular interval. I know it's not strictly necessary, but t= his > is for the client's peace of mind. We're moving them off of a tape-backup > system and the client needs to be able to take the store home with them a= t > night. >=20 > So, what would be the best way to approach this? I'm looking for a way t= o > pause the store so that I don't stop it in mid-backup of some file. I nee= d a > clean snapshot of the store. >=20 > Any information would be greatly appreciated. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Marshall Buschman _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Sun Sep 18 10:21:52 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Garry Glendown) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:21:52 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Problem with large files? Message-ID: <432D31B0.70801@nethinks.com> After having some problems on one machine with bbackupd failing, I finally took the time to pinpoint the cause ... this is what I kept getting: Sep 17 01:41:56 collector bbackupd[25039]: Beginning scan of local files Sep 17 01:41:56 collector bbackupd[25039]: Opening connection to server xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx... Sep 17 01:41:56 collector bbackupd[25039]: Connection made, login successful Sep 17 02:10:05 collector bbackupd[25039]: Exception caught (7/47), reset state and waiting to retry... Sep 17 02:11:45 collector bbackupd[25039]: File statistics: total file size uploaded 935578298, bytes already on server 0, encoded size 936073016 Turns out I had a file to be stored with size 935578298 bytes ... is there any general limit that might cause this, or do I need to try to find the cause of this with some additional debugging? -garry From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Sun Sep 18 10:29:28 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:29:28 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Problem with large files? In-Reply-To: <432D31B0.70801@nethinks.com> References: <432D31B0.70801@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <533CF136-10A1-4CFD-AE31-3B7D0ACCF8DB@fluffy.co.uk> On 18 Sep 2005, at 10:21, Garry Glendown wrote: > After having some problems on one machine with bbackupd failing, I > finally took the time to pinpoint the cause ... this is what I kept > getting: > > Sep 17 01:41:56 collector bbackupd[25039]: Beginning scan of local > files > Sep 17 01:41:56 collector bbackupd[25039]: Opening connection to > server > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx... > Sep 17 01:41:56 collector bbackupd[25039]: Connection made, login > successful > Sep 17 02:10:05 collector bbackupd[25039]: Exception caught (7/47), > reset state and waiting to retry... > Sep 17 02:11:45 collector bbackupd[25039]: File statistics: total file > size uploaded 935578298, bytes already on server 0, encoded size > 936073016 > > Turns out I had a file to be stored with size 935578298 bytes ... is > there any general limit that might cause this, No. That file size should be OK on platforms which support large files. (both client and server need such support) > or do I need to try to > find the cause of this with some additional debugging? Worth a go. It would be nice to see a log with ExtendedLogging switch on on both client and server. 7/47 suggests that an error was returned from the server, and you'll need that log to see it. Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Sun Sep 18 15:58:02 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Garry Glendown) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:58:02 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Problem with large files? In-Reply-To: <533CF136-10A1-4CFD-AE31-3B7D0ACCF8DB@fluffy.co.uk> References: <432D31B0.70801@nethinks.com> <533CF136-10A1-4CFD-AE31-3B7D0ACCF8DB@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <432D807A.9010404@nethinks.com> >> No. That file size should be OK on platforms which support large files. > (both client and server need such support) > >> or do I need to try to >> find the cause of this with some additional debugging? > > > Worth a go. It would be nice to see a log with ExtendedLogging switch > on on both client and server. 7/47 suggests that an error was returned > from the server, and you'll need that log to see it. OK, running now, though I suspect I know what actually caused it: query > usage Used 3999.2Mb 88% *********************************** Old files 0.0Mb 0% Deleted files 563.8Mb 12% ***** Directories 15.7Mb 0% Soft limit 4000.0Mb 88% *********************************** Hard limit 4500.0Mb 100% **************************************** Could it be that boxbackup doesn't handle file uploads that exceed the amount of available space to graceful yet? Shouldn't the client check before the upload whether the file will actually fit the alottet space? I know the files are compressed and crypted, but still it might be nice to keep some kind of track of the available space ;) Imagine this happening on a WAN line with traffic charged ... (no, this was running on a LAN link, so no problem there ;) ) -gg From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Mon Sep 19 10:41:27 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Jani Mikkonen) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:41:27 +0300 Subject: [Box Backup] Traffic shaping ? Message-ID: <432E87C7.4080605@emicnetworks.com> I ran boxbackup in centralized place for few offsite nodes as well as local nodes. The net link in the offsite nodes arent really good so i was thinking if there's any plans for traffic shaping so one could limit the bandwidth usage ? As a sidenote, im aware of the linux kernel options to make the shaping too but at the moment, i just wish to ask this simple question ;) From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Mon Sep 19 11:07:34 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:07:34 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Problem with large files? In-Reply-To: <432D807A.9010404@nethinks.com> References: <432D31B0.70801@nethinks.com> <533CF136-10A1-4CFD-AE31-3B7D0ACCF8DB@fluffy.co.uk> <432D807A.9010404@nethinks.com> Message-ID: <26B18E35-E4F4-46D3-AAB6-45F5772453BD@fluffy.co.uk> On 18 Sep 2005, at 15:58, Garry Glendown wrote: >>> No. That file size should be OK on platforms which support large >>> files. >>> >> (both client and server need such support) >> >> >>> or do I need to try to >>> find the cause of this with some additional debugging? >>> >> >> >> Worth a go. It would be nice to see a log with ExtendedLogging switch >> on on both client and server. 7/47 suggests that an error was >> returned >> from the server, and you'll need that log to see it. >> > > OK, running now, though I suspect I know what actually caused it: > > query > usage > Used 3999.2Mb 88% *********************************** > Old files 0.0Mb 0% > Deleted files 563.8Mb 12% ***** > Directories 15.7Mb 0% > Soft limit 4000.0Mb 88% *********************************** > Hard limit 4500.0Mb 100% > **************************************** > > Could it be that boxbackup doesn't handle file uploads that exceed the > amount of available space to graceful yet? Shouldn't the client check > before the upload whether the file will actually fit the alottet > space? > I know the files are compressed and crypted, but still it might be > nice > to keep some kind of track of the available space ;) Imagine this > happening on a WAN line with traffic charged ... (no, this was running > on a LAN link, so no problem there ;) ) Yes, that will be the problem. The server will be telling the client that there wasn't enough space available in the account, and refusing to add the file. And you're right, it does need to be more graceful about it. Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Mon Sep 19 11:11:35 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:11:35 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Traffic shaping ? In-Reply-To: <432E87C7.4080605@emicnetworks.com> References: <432E87C7.4080605@emicnetworks.com> Message-ID: <8673CEAC-2CB9-4D54-A5F8-ACD6AAA87A5C@fluffy.co.uk> On 19 Sep 2005, at 10:41, Jani Mikkonen wrote: > I ran boxbackup in centralized place for few offsite nodes as well as > local nodes. The net link in the offsite nodes arent really good so i > was thinking if there's any plans for traffic shaping so one could > limit > the bandwidth usage ? > > As a sidenote, im aware of the linux kernel options to make the > shaping > too but at the moment, i just wish to ask this simple question ;) I have got traffic shaping on my list of features. However, given that with most OSes it's trivially easy to do traffic shaping with existing kernel features (for example, pf on OpenBSD), it is a low priority task. Also, it would be a far more elegant solution to move this function to the firewall, where non-Box Backup traffic could take priority to give the backup all the bandwidth which isn't currently being used for other purposes. BTW, if anyone would like to code it up, I can give them pointers on the best way to achieve it. It's not difficult, just a pain to test. Ben PS: Yes, plans are still underway to get the SVN server up. Almost there... From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Mon Sep 19 12:23:29 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Nick Knight) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:23:29 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] My box problems - corrupt file on server Message-ID: The problem I emailed about on Friday - def looks like a corrupt file on the server, beyond running the utilities on the server to check for corruption (and none was found) is there a way that you can manually remove it form the backup store? If not is it something which could easily be added to the client or server utils? From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Tue Sep 20 09:14:40 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:14:40 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] My box problems - corrupt file on server In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00FCA14E-54C0-41BB-8F93-09C0A8AA2EDF@fluffy.co.uk> On 19 Sep 2005, at 12:23, Nick Knight wrote: > The problem I emailed about on Friday I don't recall this. > - def looks like a corrupt file on > the server, beyond running the utilities on the server to check for > corruption (and none was found) is there a way that you can manually > remove it form the backup store? If you know the ID, use the method previous posted to determine it's filename, then delete it. > > If not is it something which could easily be added to the client or > server utils? I expect so. bbstoreaccounts would be the best utility. It could simply take an account ID and an object ID, and delete the file, I suppose. It might be better to get the fix function to find the error, however. Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Tue Sep 20 12:40:20 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Nick Knight) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:40:20 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] My box problems - corrupt file on server Message-ID: I have looked through the mailing list for this method - but I cannot find it, any chance you can list it again!=20 Thanks Nick -----Original Message----- From: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk] On Behalf Of Ben Summers Sent: 20 September 2005 09:15 To: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Subject: Re: [Box Backup] My box problems - corrupt file on server On 19 Sep 2005, at 12:23, Nick Knight wrote: > The problem I emailed about on Friday I don't recall this. > - def looks like a corrupt file on > the server, beyond running the utilities on the server to check for > corruption (and none was found) is there a way that you can manually > remove it form the backup store? If you know the ID, use the method previous posted to determine it's =20 filename, then delete it. > > If not is it something which could easily be added to the client or > server utils? I expect so. bbstoreaccounts would be the best utility. It could =20 simply take an account ID and an object ID, and delete the file, I =20 suppose. It might be better to get the fix function to find the =20 error, however. Ben _______________________________________________ boxbackup mailing list boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Tue Sep 20 12:46:00 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:46:00 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] My box problems - corrupt file on server In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2808736D-A356-4BC3-BE1C-E786C4938223@fluffy.co.uk> A quick google found this: http://lists.warhead.org.uk/pipermail/boxbackup/2005-July/001563.html Ben On 20 Sep 2005, at 12:40, Nick Knight wrote: > I have looked through the mailing list for this method - but I cannot > find it, any chance you can list it again! > Thanks > > Nick > > -----Original Message----- > From: boxbackup-admin at fluffy.co.uk [mailto:boxbackup- > admin at fluffy.co.uk] > On Behalf Of Ben Summers > Sent: 20 September 2005 09:15 > To: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > Subject: Re: [Box Backup] My box problems - corrupt file on server > > > On 19 Sep 2005, at 12:23, Nick Knight wrote: > > >> The problem I emailed about on Friday >> > > I don't recall this. > > >> - def looks like a corrupt file on >> the server, beyond running the utilities on the server to check for >> corruption (and none was found) is there a way that you can manually >> remove it form the backup store? >> > > If you know the ID, use the method previous posted to determine it's > filename, then delete it. > > >> >> If not is it something which could easily be added to the client or >> server utils? >> > > I expect so. bbstoreaccounts would be the best utility. It could > simply take an account ID and an object ID, and delete the file, I > suppose. It might be better to get the fix function to find the > error, however. > > Ben > > > > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > > > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Tue Sep 20 22:52:59 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Marshall Buschman) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:52:59 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] Raidfile Error 2/8 Message-ID: hey guys: I know this is a potentially obvious one, but I've checked all I can think to check. Nothing seems to work. Here's the story: I'm using the 0.09 ebuilds, running with the userland RAID disabled. Upon trying to add an account, it gives me the Raidfile OSError (2/8) (Error when accessing an underlying file..) It's all chowned to the correct user, bbstored. I even changed bbstored's shell and verified all the files were accessible. The thing that boggles my mind is that it worked before. I did accidentally delete my bbstored.conf, but the gentoo scripts recreated it for me, and it looks like it's all correct. Any help would be appreciated. Marshall From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Wed Sep 21 09:54:18 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:54:18 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] Raidfile Error 2/8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3915D486-F78E-4C06-99B5-9B7424E7A3B0@fluffy.co.uk> On 20 Sep 2005, at 22:52, Marshall Buschman wrote: > hey guys: > > I know this is a potentially obvious one, but I've checked all I can > think to check. Nothing seems to work. > > Here's the story: > I'm using the 0.09 ebuilds, running with the userland RAID disabled. > Upon trying to add an account, it gives me the Raidfile OSError (2/8) > (Error when accessing an underlying file..) > > It's all chowned to the correct user, bbstored. I even changed > bbstored's shell and verified all the files were accessible. > > The thing that boggles my mind is that it worked before. > I did accidentally delete my bbstored.conf, but the gentoo scripts > recreated it for me, and it looks like it's all correct. > > Any help would be appreciated. Please post bbstored.conf and raidfile.conf. First checking that the paths in raidfile.conf are correct. Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Wed Sep 21 18:10:10 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Marshall Buschman) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:10:10 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] Raidfile Error 2/8 In-Reply-To: <3915D486-F78E-4C06-99B5-9B7424E7A3B0@fluffy.co.uk> References: <3915D486-F78E-4C06-99B5-9B7424E7A3B0@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: I was doing all of my work inside of VMWare 5.0 - I tried it on my host machine and it works exactly as expected. I don't know what the story was, but the chances are extremely good it had nothing to do with Box Backup. I've been experiencing some oddities in VMWare lately.. VMWare + Reiser4 issues maybe? who knows. Consider this one resolved. Thanks. Marshall On 9/21/05, Ben Summers wrote: > > On 20 Sep 2005, at 22:52, Marshall Buschman wrote: > > > hey guys: > > > > I know this is a potentially obvious one, but I've checked all I can > > think to check. Nothing seems to work. > > > > Here's the story: > > I'm using the 0.09 ebuilds, running with the userland RAID disabled. > > Upon trying to add an account, it gives me the Raidfile OSError (2/8) > > (Error when accessing an underlying file..) > > > > It's all chowned to the correct user, bbstored. I even changed > > bbstored's shell and verified all the files were accessible. > > > > The thing that boggles my mind is that it worked before. > > I did accidentally delete my bbstored.conf, but the gentoo scripts > > recreated it for me, and it looks like it's all correct. > > > > Any help would be appreciated. > > Please post bbstored.conf and raidfile.conf. First checking that the > paths in raidfile.conf are correct. > > Ben > > > > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Fri Sep 23 21:42:32 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Nikita Borisov) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:42:32 -0500 Subject: [Box Backup] backupbox on MacOS X Message-ID: <16f0378d05092313426f26ca97@mail.gmail.com> I'm trying to install a boxbackup storage server on my MacOS 10.4 box. Initially, I had trouble compiling boxbackup, but after a small patch to BoxPlatform.h (below) I got it to build. However, when I ran the unit tests, I got a number of failures, so something is wrong. Here are the errors I got: % ./runtest.pl ALL | grep FAIL IMPLICIT TEST FAILED: Something left files open FAILED: 1 tests failed FAILURE: Condition [foundCurrent] failed at testbackupstore.cpp(1354) FAILURE: Condition [foundOld] failed at testbackupstore.cpp(1355) IMPLICIT TEST FAILED: Something left files open FAILED: 3 tests failed IMPLICIT TEST FAILED: Something left files open FAILED: 1 tests failed IMPLICIT TEST FAILED: Something left files open FAILED: 1 tests failed basicserver: FAILED: 1 tests failed backupstore: FAILED: 3 tests failed backupstorepatch: FAILED: 1 tests failed bbackupd: FAILED: 1 tests failed % I'm guessing the files left open isn't a very big deal, but the two failures in the backupstore have me worried. Any suggestions for figuring out what's wrong? I have the complete test output file up at: http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~nikita/tmp/boxbackup.tests Thanks, - Nikita PS. Here's the BoxPlatform patch I had to use: diff -u lib/common/BoxPlatform.h.orig lib/common/BoxPlatform.h --- lib/common/BoxPlatform.h.orig 2005-09-23 15:15:01.000000000 -0500 +++ lib/common/BoxPlatform.h 2005-09-23 15:15:18.000000000 -0500 @@ -117,7 +117,6 @@ #include // types 'missing' - typedef int socklen_t; typedef u_int8_t uint8_t; typedef signed char int8_t; typedef u_int64_t uint64_t; @@ -134,6 +133,8 @@ #define PLATFORM_READLINE_NOT_SUPPORTED #define PLATFORM_RANDOM_DEVICE "/dev/random" + + #define PLATFORM_GCC3 #endif // PLATFORM_DARWIN From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Sun Sep 25 16:49:59 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:49:59 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] backupbox on Mac OS X In-Reply-To: <16f0378d05092313426f26ca97@mail.gmail.com> References: <16f0378d05092313426f26ca97@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 23 Sep 2005, at 21:42, Nikita Borisov wrote: > I'm trying to install a boxbackup storage server on my MacOS 10.4 box. > Initially, I had trouble compiling boxbackup, but after a small patch > to BoxPlatform.h (below) I got it to build. However, when I ran the > unit tests, I got a number of failures, so something is wrong. Here > are the errors I got: > > % ./runtest.pl ALL | grep FAIL > IMPLICIT TEST FAILED: Something left files open The file left open is the syslog socket. I haven't been bothered to fix this yet. > FAILED: 1 tests failed > FAILURE: Condition [foundCurrent] failed at testbackupstore.cpp(1354) > FAILURE: Condition [foundOld] failed at testbackupstore.cpp(1355) This is likely to be a timing issue. The problem with testing an independent daemon which uploads stuff in it's own sweet time is that it's difficult to write a test which reliably checks that it's done it's work but doesn't take ages to execute. It looks like your timings were off on that run. > + > + #define PLATFORM_GCC3 Mac OS X 10.4 uses GCC v4, which wasn't around when I did the build environment. Your patch fixes things perfectly fine until the next version, which detects things properly. I actually did most of the development work under Mac OS X 10.3, so you should be fine using it. But note that the backup client doesn't store resource forks or any other HFS+ attributes, if that's important to you. Of course, the server support is platform independent. Ben From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Mon Sep 26 15:15:58 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (John Pybus) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:15:58 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] build problem on linux FC4 x84-64 Message-ID: <4338029E.5030806@pybus.org> Hi, I'm having trouble building boxbackup on an AMD64 machine running the 64bit version of FC4. I've applied the build tweak for gcc4 from: http://lists.warhead.org.uk/pipermail/boxbackup/2005-July/001571.html Build error below. Anyone managed to build on x84-64 linux? Cheers, John [boxbackup-0.09]# make mkdir parcels/boxbackup-0.09-backup-client-Linux (cd bin/bbackupd; make RELEASE=1) make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/boxbackup-0.09/bin/bbackupd' g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DPLATFORM_GCC3 -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c BackupClientDeleteList.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupClientDeleteList.o g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DPLATFORM_GCC3 -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c BackupClientContext.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupClientContext.o g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DPLATFORM_GCC3 -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c BackupDaemon.cpp -o ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupDaemon.o ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h: In static member function ?static void* BackupStoreFile::CodingChunkAlloc(int)?: ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h:164: error: cast from ?u_int8_t*? to ?u_int32_t? loses precision BackupDaemon.cpp: In member function ?void BackupDaemon::Run2()?: BackupDaemon.cpp:599: warning: format ?%lld? expects type ?long long int?, but argument 3 has type ?int64_t? BackupDaemon.cpp:599: warning: format ?%lld? expects type ?long long int?, but argument 4 has type ?int64_t? BackupDaemon.cpp:599: warning: format ?%lld? expects type ?long long int?, but argument 5 has type ?int64_t? BackupDaemon.cpp: In member function ?void BackupDaemon::DeleteUnusedRootDirEntries(BackupClientContext&)?: BackupDaemon.cpp:1585: warning: format ?%08llx? expects type ?long long unsigned int?, but argument 4 has type ?int64_t? make[1]: *** [../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupDaemon.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/boxbackup-0.09/bin/bbackupd' make: *** [parcels/boxbackup-0.09-backup-client-Linux.tgz] Error 2 [boxbackup-0.09]# uname -srmpio Linux 2.6.12-1.1398_FC4 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [boxbackup-0.09]# gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: x86_64-redhat-linux Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-libgcj-multifile --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,java,f95,ada --enable-java-awt=gtk --with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj-1.4.2.0/jre --host=x86_64-redhat-linux Thread model: posix gcc version 4.0.1 20050727 (Red Hat 4.0.1-5) From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Mon Sep 26 20:21:05 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (dave bamford) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:21:05 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] build problem on linux FC4 x84-64 In-Reply-To: <4338029E.5030806@pybus.org> References: <4338029E.5030806@pybus.org> Message-ID: <43384A21.4020709@logical-progress.com> Hi John I Built the server and client on Linux FC3-x86-64 AMD64 Never saw that error. Perhaps its an FC4 thing. Dave Bamford. John Pybus wrote: > Hi, > > I'm having trouble building boxbackup on an AMD64 machine running the > 64bit version of FC4. > > I've applied the build tweak for gcc4 from: > > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/pipermail/boxbackup/2005-July/001571.html > > Build error below. Anyone managed to build on x84-64 linux? > > Cheers, > > John > > > [boxbackup-0.09]# make > mkdir parcels/boxbackup-0.09-backup-client-Linux > (cd bin/bbackupd; make RELEASE=1) > make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/boxbackup-0.09/bin/bbackupd' > g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress > -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient > -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DPLATFORM_GCC3 -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" > -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c BackupClientDeleteList.cpp -o > ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupClientDeleteList.o > g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress > -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient > -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DPLATFORM_GCC3 -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" > -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c BackupClientContext.cpp -o > ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupClientContext.o > g++ -DNDEBUG -O2 -Wall -I../../lib/common -I../../lib/compress > -I../../lib/crypto -I../../lib/server -I../../lib/backupclient > -DPLATFORM_LINUX -DPLATFORM_GCC3 -DBOX_VERSION="\"0.09\"" > -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -c BackupDaemon.cpp -o > ../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupDaemon.o > ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h: In static member function > ?static void* BackupStoreFile::CodingChunkAlloc(int)?: > ../../lib/backupclient/BackupStoreFile.h:164: error: cast from > ?u_int8_t*? to ?u_int32_t? loses precision > BackupDaemon.cpp: In member function ?void BackupDaemon::Run2()?: > BackupDaemon.cpp:599: warning: format ?%lld? expects type ?long long > int?, but argument 3 has type ?int64_t? > BackupDaemon.cpp:599: warning: format ?%lld? expects type ?long long > int?, but argument 4 has type ?int64_t? > BackupDaemon.cpp:599: warning: format ?%lld? expects type ?long long > int?, but argument 5 has type ?int64_t? > BackupDaemon.cpp: In member function ?void > BackupDaemon::DeleteUnusedRootDirEntries(BackupClientContext&)?: > BackupDaemon.cpp:1585: warning: format ?%08llx? expects type ?long > long unsigned int?, but argument 4 has type ?int64_t? > make[1]: *** [../../release/bin/bbackupd/BackupDaemon.o] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/boxbackup-0.09/bin/bbackupd' > make: *** [parcels/boxbackup-0.09-backup-client-Linux.tgz] Error 2 > > [boxbackup-0.09]# uname -srmpio > Linux 2.6.12-1.1398_FC4 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > [boxbackup-0.09]# gcc -v > Using built-in specs. > Target: x86_64-redhat-linux > Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man > --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix > --enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit > --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-libgcj-multifile > --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,java,f95,ada --enable-java-awt=gtk > --with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj-1.4.2.0/jre > --host=x86_64-redhat-linux > Thread model: posix > gcc version 4.0.1 20050727 (Red Hat 4.0.1-5) > > _______________________________________________ > boxbackup mailing list > boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Tue Sep 27 11:53:48 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:53:48 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] build problem on linux FC4 x84-64 In-Reply-To: <4338029E.5030806@pybus.org> References: <4338029E.5030806@pybus.org> Message-ID: <2F2A224E-D87A-44B9-BB59-3876CC3348BA@fluffy.co.uk> On 26 Sep 2005, at 15:15, John Pybus wrote: > Hi, > > I'm having trouble building boxbackup on an AMD64 machine running > the 64bit version of FC4. > > I've applied the build tweak for gcc4 from: > > http://lists.warhead.org.uk/pipermail/boxbackup/2005-July/001571.html > > Build error below. Anyone managed to build on x84-64 linux? There is a 64-bit patch floating around. But to solve the immediate problem adjust the two functions in BackupStoreFile.h so that uint32_t is replaced by uint64_t. Ben inline static void *CodingChunkAlloc(int Size) { uint8_t *a = (uint8_t*)malloc((Size) + (BACKUPSTOREFILE_CODING_BLOCKSIZE * 3)); if(a == 0) return 0; // Align to main block size ASSERT(sizeof(uint64_t) == sizeof(void*)); // make sure casting the right pointer size, will need to fix on platforms with 64 bit pointers uint64_t adjustment = BACKUPSTOREFILE_CODING_BLOCKSIZE - (((uint64_t)a) % BACKUPSTOREFILE_CODING_BLOCKSIZE); uint8_t *b = (a + adjustment); // Store adjustment *b = (uint8_t)adjustment; // Return offset return b + BACKUPSTOREFILE_CODING_OFFSET; } inline static void CodingChunkFree(void *Block) { // Check alignment is as expected ASSERT(sizeof(uint64_t) == sizeof(void*)); // make sure casting the right pointer size, will need to fix on platforms with 64 bit pointers ASSERT((((uint64_t)Block) % BACKUPSTOREFILE_CODING_BLOCKSIZE) == BACKUPSTOREFILE_CODING_OFFSET); uint8_t *a = (uint8_t*)Block; a -= BACKUPSTOREFILE_CODING_OFFSET; // Adjust downwards... a -= *a; free(a); } From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Wed Sep 28 09:33:18 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (John Pybus) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:33:18 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] build problem on linux FC4 x84-64 In-Reply-To: <2F2A224E-D87A-44B9-BB59-3876CC3348BA@fluffy.co.uk> References: <4338029E.5030806@pybus.org> <2F2A224E-D87A-44B9-BB59-3876CC3348BA@fluffy.co.uk> Message-ID: <433A554E.30107@pybus.org> Ben Summers wrote: > > On 26 Sep 2005, at 15:15, John Pybus wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm having trouble building boxbackup on an AMD64 machine running the >> 64bit version of FC4. > > There is a 64-bit patch floating around. But to solve the immediate > problem adjust the two functions in BackupStoreFile.h so that uint32_t > is replaced by uint64_t. > > Ben Thanks a lot, that did the trick. I was assuming from the 0.08 release notes that boxbackup was now 64bit safe. Hopefully this and the GCC4 issue will get roled into the build system for the next release. Cheers, John From boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk Wed Sep 28 09:38:05 2005 From: boxbackup at fluffy.co.uk (Ben Summers) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:38:05 +0100 Subject: [Box Backup] build problem on linux FC4 x84-64 In-Reply-To: <433A554E.30107@pybus.org> References: <4338029E.5030806@pybus.org> <2F2A224E-D87A-44B9-BB59-3876CC3348BA@fluffy.co.uk> <433A554E.30107@pybus.org> Message-ID: <6D6FC386-0E8B-4D35-9235-DB8F7929421D@fluffy.co.uk> On 28 Sep 2005, at 09:33, John Pybus wrote: > Ben Summers wrote: > >> On 26 Sep 2005, at 15:15, John Pybus wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm having trouble building boxbackup on an AMD64 machine >>> running the 64bit version of FC4. >>> > > >> There is a 64-bit patch floating around. But to solve the >> immediate problem adjust the two functions in BackupStoreFile.h >> so that uint32_t is replaced by uint64_t. >> Ben >> > > Thanks a lot, that did the trick. I was assuming from the 0.08 > release notes that boxbackup was now 64bit safe. > > Hopefully this and the GCC4 issue will get roled into the build > system for the next release. Absolutely, yes. Ben