From afernandez at asolutions.es Wed Jun 1 07:46:58 2011 From: afernandez at asolutions.es (Andres Fernandez) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:46:58 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] SSL Error Message-ID: <78ACF962ECD442A0B5EF4454FCA58686@calconsa.com> Hi List, First of all, thanks to person that answered my question, I lost this email and I dont remember his name. I fixed the problem of openssl.conf . Now I have another problem, when I try to run bbstored-certs I receveid bbstored-certs /etc/boxbackup/ca sign-server /etc/boxbackup//ca/clients/31-cert.pem unable to load X509 request 12797:error:0906D06C:PEM routines:PEM_read_bio:no start line:pem_lib.c:647:Expecting: CERTIFICATE REQUEST No subject found in CSR /etc/boxbackup//ca/clients/31-cert.pem at /usr/bin/bbstored-certs line 297. Regards, Andres. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at qwirx.com Wed Jun 1 08:09:42 2011 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 10:09:42 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [Box Backup] SSL Error In-Reply-To: <78ACF962ECD442A0B5EF4454FCA58686@calconsa.com> References: <78ACF962ECD442A0B5EF4454FCA58686@calconsa.com> Message-ID: Hi Andres, On Wed, 1 Jun 2011, Andres Fernandez wrote: > ??? Now I have another problem, when I try to run bbstored-certs?I receveid > ? > ??? bbstored-certs /etc/boxbackup/ca sign-server /etc/boxbackup//ca/clients/31-cert.pem Could you paste the first line of the contents of that file? The account setup system that you're using doesn't appear to be part of the ordinary Box Backup software. Are you using something else as well? If so, what is it? Cheers, Chris. From achim+box at qustodium.net Sat Jun 4 02:18:44 2011 From: achim+box at qustodium.net (Achim) Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 03:18:44 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Boxi discards certain conf values (logging, upload rate) Message-ID: Good evening: I just discovered that Boxi discards certain bbackupd.conf values, which caused (at least) me some time to figure out. Suppose the following values are present in bbackupd.conf. bbackupd et al play nicely and respect the settings: ExtendedLogFile = log\bbackupd_raw.log LogAllFileAccess = yes LogFile = log\bbackupd.log LogFileLevel = notice NotifyAlways = yes MaxUploadRate = 35000 Now open the same configuration file in Boxi, and save it again. The above values will disappear without warning... Especially the "older" keys such as LogFile and LogFileLevel should be preserved. What is the best way to fix this? Perhaps Boxi should concern itself only with keys it knows, and leave the rest alone? Thanks, Achim From achim+box at qustodium.net Wed Jun 8 01:25:11 2011 From: achim+box at qustodium.net (Achim) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 02:25:11 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Unexpected bbackupctl behaviour with "sync" and "sync-and-wait" Message-ID: Hello list: I just spend a few hours due to a very subtle bug: bbackupctl.exe -c "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Datos de programa\Fortiko Online Backup\bbackupd.conf" sync results in: "NOTICE: Delaying sync by 3600 seconds due to SyncAllowScript ("C:\Archivos de programa\Backup\SyncAllowScript.cmd" "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Datos de programa\Backup\bbackupd.conf")" BUT bbackupctl.exe -c "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Datos de programa\Fortiko Online Backup\bbackupd.conf" sync-and-wait skips the syncallowscript.cmd and gives: "NOTICE: Beginning scan of local files" I thought that behaviour (ignoring the output of syncallow) was reserverd for force-sync? Is this perhaps a side effect of code reusage? Thanks, Achim From achim+box at qustodium.net Wed Jun 8 02:57:20 2011 From: achim+box at qustodium.net (Achim) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:57:20 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Unexpected bbackupctl behaviour with "sync" and "sync-and-wait" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1e305ac029d6546291d345712ffa4e2d@localhost> And just now I had a situation where even "sync" would not wait for the result of SyncAllowScript.cmd, but instead call the notify script already with the "backup-start" event, before the syncallowscript gave any answer such like "3600" or "now". Anybody else seeing this? Achim On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 02:25:11 +0200, Achim wrote: > Hello list: > > I just spend a few hours due to a very subtle bug: > > bbackupctl.exe -c "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Datos de > programa\Fortiko Online Backup\bbackupd.conf" sync > > results in: > > "NOTICE: Delaying sync by 3600 seconds due to SyncAllowScript > ("C:\Archivos de programa\Backup\SyncAllowScript.cmd" "C:\Documents > and Settings\All Users\Datos de programa\Backup\bbackupd.conf")" > > BUT > > bbackupctl.exe -c "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Datos de > programa\Fortiko Online Backup\bbackupd.conf" sync-and-wait > > skips the syncallowscript.cmd and gives: > > "NOTICE: Beginning scan of local files" > > I thought that behaviour (ignoring the output of syncallow) was > reserverd for force-sync? > > Is this perhaps a side effect of code reusage? > > Thanks, Achim > > _______________________________________________ > Boxbackup mailing list > Boxbackup at boxbackup.org > http://lists.boxbackup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup From chris at qwirx.com Wed Jun 8 09:45:34 2011 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:45:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] Unexpected bbackupctl behaviour with "sync" and "sync-and-wait" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Achim, On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Achim wrote: > bbackupctl.exe -c "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Datos de > programa\Fortiko Online Backup\bbackupd.conf" sync-and-wait > > skips the syncallowscript.cmd and gives: > > "NOTICE: Beginning scan of local files" > > I thought that behaviour (ignoring the output of syncallow) was reserverd for > force-sync? No, sync-and-wait does a force sync. Perhaps it's misnamed, but the assumption is that if you're waiting for it to finish, perhaps the sync has a higher priority. Especially as some SyncAllowScripts might block indefinitely. case SyncAndWaitForEnd: { // send a sync command commandName = "force-sync"; Cheers, Chris. -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | From chris at qwirx.com Fri Jun 10 22:57:41 2011 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:57:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] Unexpected bbackupctl behaviour with "sync" and "sync-and-wait" In-Reply-To: <1e305ac029d6546291d345712ffa4e2d@localhost> References: <1e305ac029d6546291d345712ffa4e2d@localhost> Message-ID: Hi Achim, On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Achim wrote: > And just now I had a situation where even "sync" would not wait for the > result of SyncAllowScript.cmd, but instead call the notify script > already with the "backup-start" event, before the syncallowscript gave > any answer such like "3600" or "now". I haven't seen that, it should not happen. Plain "sync" should respect the SyncAllowScript: if(!mDoSyncForcedByCommand && doSync && !StopRun()) { int d = UseScriptToSeeIfSyncAllowed(); If you can reproduce this, or your logs indicate that a "sync" command was received and the SyncAllowScript was not called, please let me know. Cheers, Chris. -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | From achim+box at qustodium.net Tue Jun 14 15:01:50 2011 From: achim+box at qustodium.net (Achim) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:01:50 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Unexpected bbackupctl behaviour with "sync" and "sync-and-wait" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67faeb6be8b088d06bbe019ebd733761@localhost> Hello Chris: On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:45:34 +0100 (BST), Chris Wilson wrote: > No, sync-and-wait does a force sync. Perhaps it's misnamed, but the > assumption is that if you're waiting for it to finish, perhaps the > sync has a higher priority. Especially as some SyncAllowScripts might > block indefinitely. > > case SyncAndWaitForEnd: > { > // send a sync command > commandName = "force-sync"; Thanks for the clarification. Shouldn't the command "sync-and-wait" be renamed to "force-sync-and-wait", just to be 100% consistent and avoid confusion for other users? At the same time, I think that this behaviour eliminates some uses that people might have for the sync-allow script, such as creating a LVM/DB/VSS snapshot, since this will be skipped upon force sync. Personally, I just moved all functionality from syncallow to the notify script, particularly the backup-start and backup-stop sections that are certain to be called for every backup. On a side note, other solutions such as BackupPC or Amanda/Zmanda offer a very fine-grained access to the different stages in the backup process: Would this be something useful for BB? Note the examples from zmanda to create snapshots or notify the user before/after backup/restore for specific "Backup Locations", as opposed to the current whole backup. Best regards, Achim From chris at qwirx.com Thu Jun 16 16:50:04 2011 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:50:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] Unexpected bbackupctl behaviour with "sync" and "sync-and-wait" In-Reply-To: <67faeb6be8b088d06bbe019ebd733761@localhost> References: <67faeb6be8b088d06bbe019ebd733761@localhost> Message-ID: Hi Achim, On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Achim wrote: > Shouldn't the command "sync-and-wait" be renamed to > "force-sync-and-wait", just to be 100% consistent and avoid confusion > for other users? Possibly. > At the same time, I think that this behaviour eliminates some uses that > people might have for the sync-allow script, such as creating a > LVM/DB/VSS snapshot, since this will be skipped upon force sync. I think it's better to do that in the notifyscript than the syncallowscript, as you pointed out below. > Personally, I just moved all functionality from syncallow to the notify > script, particularly the backup-start and backup-stop sections that are > certain to be called for every backup. On a side note, other solutions > such as BackupPC or Amanda/Zmanda offer a very fine-grained access to > the different stages in the backup process: > > > > > Would this be something useful for BB? Note the examples from zmanda to > create snapshots or notify the user before/after backup/restore for > specific "Backup Locations", as opposed to the current whole backup. Yes, we could add stuff like that if it really seemed to be useful, and worth the effort versus implementing things like better VSS support or snapshots. However I don't understand what the use case would be in this case. Can you give me examples? Cheers, Chris. From hbrunk at ieee.org Sun Jun 19 17:07:34 2011 From: hbrunk at ieee.org (Hugh Brunk) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:07:34 -0700 Subject: [Box Backup] corrupted boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz ? Message-ID: Thanks for the great software! I've been a happy user for a couple of years now. I tried to install in Arch Linux, but get md5 errors. Luckily, I hadn't deleted the archive from installing to another machine, so I just pointed the PKGBUILD file to the other machine and all was good... Here's what happens when I try to wget: [hugh at neve ~]$ wget www.boxbackup.org/svn/box/packages/boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz --2011-06-19 09:08:04-- http://www.boxbackup.org/svn/box/packages/boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz Resolving www.boxbackup.org... 77.75.105.12 Connecting to www.boxbackup.org|77.75.105.12|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 1863918 (1.8M) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: ?boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz? 100%[======================================>] 1,863,918 157K/s in 13s 2011-06-19 09:08:18 (139 KB/s) - ?boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz? saved [1863918/1863918] [hugh at neve ~]$ md5sum boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz c88405ed90de0f032b783f6a66fdb28d boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz The md5sum is consistently the same wrong value, for downloading to different machines, so I thought I'd pass on to you. /Hugh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at qwirx.com Mon Jun 20 11:52:26 2011 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:52:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] corrupted boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Hugh, On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Hugh Brunk wrote: > Thanks for the great software! ?I've been a happy user for a couple of > years now. I tried to install in Arch Linux, but get md5 errors. > ?Luckily, I hadn't deleted the archive from installing to another > machine, so I just pointed the PKGBUILD file to the other machine and > all was good... ? I had to respin the rc8 archive to remove some copyrighted software from it, so the md5 sum has changed. How do we go about getting Arch Linux to update their md5 sum so that it matches again? Cheers, Chris. From hbrunk at ieee.org Mon Jun 20 21:55:12 2011 From: hbrunk at ieee.org (Hugh Brunk) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:55:12 -0700 Subject: [Box Backup] corrupted boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Chris Wilson wrote: >On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Hugh Brunk wrote: >>* Thanks for the great software! I've been a happy user for a couple of *>>* years now. I tried to install in Arch Linux, but get md5 errors. *>>* Luckily, I hadn't deleted the archive from installing to another *>>* machine, so I just pointed the PKGBUILD file to the other machine and *>>* all was good... * >I had to respin the rc8 archive to remove some copyrighted software from >it, so the md5 sum has changed. How do we go about getting Arch Linux to >update their md5 sum so that it matches again? The Boxbackup install pkg is in the Arch User Repository, and is maintained by a user (not me). After you add the new hash to the web page, I'll post a comment to the Boxbackup install pkg page, letting people know they can cut and paste the new hash into the current install script. Ideally the maintainer will then fix the script... /Hugh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris at qwirx.com Mon Jun 20 23:15:06 2011 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:15:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] corrupted boxbackup-0.11rc8.tgz ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Hugh, On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Hugh Brunk wrote: > >> Thanks for the great software! ?I've been a happy user for a couple > >> of years now. I tried to install in Arch Linux, but get md5 errors. > >> ?Luckily, I hadn't deleted the archive from installing to another > >> machine, so I just pointed the PKGBUILD file to the other machine and > >> all was good... ? > > >I had to respin the rc8 archive to remove some copyrighted software > >from it, so the md5 sum has changed. How do we go about getting Arch > >Linux to update their md5 sum so that it matches again? > > The Boxbackup install pkg is in the Arch User Repository, and is > maintained by a user (not me). ? Do you know who that might be? > After you add the new hash to the web page, I'll post a comment to > the Boxbackup install pkg page, letting people know they can cut and > paste the new hash into the current install script. > ?Ideally the maintainer will then fix the script... I've updated the md5sum and resigned the tarball, so I hope all will be OK with them now to update their package. Cheers, Chris. -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | From pjalajas at gigalock.com Wed Jun 22 17:07:16 2011 From: pjalajas at gigalock.com (Peter Jalajas, GigaLock Backup Services) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:07:16 -0400 Subject: [Box Backup] bbstoreaccounts check fix wait log? Message-ID: Hi all, As the box backup server admin, I think it's my responsibility to aggressively run bbstoreaccounts check fix for all the accounts on my server. But I have trouble running "bbstoreaccounts check fix" on some of my larger accounts because they are locked much of the day doing backups. I'd rather not kill the bbstored process for those accounts, I don't think. Does bbstoreaccounts have something like a "wait" option that waits for the account to become unlocked and then runs the requested command? And a log option so I can check the results afterwards? FWIW, here is a version of the cron job I think I'd like to run daily or weekly or so: for macct in $(ls /backup | grep -iv -e "junk") ; do nice bbstoreaccounts check ${macct} fix quiet wait log ; done I notice a KeepTryingForever variable in: http://www.boxbackup.com/trac/browser/box/trunk/bin/bbstored/HousekeepStoreAccount.cpp but that appears to be only for HouseKeeping. I see this line: while((c = getopt(argc, (char * const *)argv, "c:W:m")) != -1) in http://www.boxbackup.com/trac/browser/box/trunk/bin/bbstoreaccounts/bbstoreaccounts.cpp the W option, but I'm not sure how to use that. 100 extra credit points if bbstoreaccounts can spawn a thread waiting for that account to unlock and then meanwhile check the next account(s).... Suggestions welcome. Thanks! Pete From chris at qwirx.com Wed Jun 22 18:32:45 2011 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:32:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] bbstoreaccounts check fix wait log? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Pete, On Wed, 22 Jun 2011, Peter Jalajas, GigaLock Backup Services wrote: > As the box backup server admin, I think it's my responsibility to > aggressively run bbstoreaccounts check fix for all the accounts on my > server. I don't think it should be necessary to do that. I think it would be papering over the cracks of any problems on the accounts (usually a bug in bbstored), that should really be fixed properly (in the source code). Check and fix can take a long time and a lot of memory and should be run as rarely as possible, ideally only when: * a problem is detected, * the reason for it has been identified, * the underlying bug that led to it has been fixed or is at least fully documented, * and we've identified the proper steps to ensure that the backup client re-uploads any damaged files as soon as possible, and for how long they are not fully covered. > But I have trouble running "bbstoreaccounts check fix" on some of my > larger accounts because they are locked much of the day doing backups. > I'd rather not kill the bbstored process for those accounts, I don't > think. Does bbstoreaccounts have something like a "wait" option that > waits for the account to become unlocked and then runs the requested > command? Unfortunately not at the moment. > And a log option so I can check the results afterwards? Not yet. Where should it log to? > I notice a KeepTryingForever variable in: > http://www.boxbackup.com/trac/browser/box/trunk/bin/bbstored/HousekeepStoreAccount.cpp > but that appears to be only for HouseKeeping. > > I see this line: > while((c = getopt(argc, (char * const *)argv, "c:W:m")) != -1) > in > http://www.boxbackup.com/trac/browser/box/trunk/bin/bbstoreaccounts/bbstoreaccounts.cpp > the W option, but I'm not sure how to use that. Sorry, that's just for warnings (log level), not waiting forever. > 100 extra credit points if bbstoreaccounts can spawn a thread waiting > for that account to unlock and then meanwhile check the next > account(s).... Hmm, maybe, but we don't currently use threads at all, and it might be dangerous to start. Perhaps fork() is a better model. Cheers, Chris. From pjalajas at gigalock.com Wed Jun 22 18:52:35 2011 From: pjalajas at gigalock.com (Peter Jalajas, GigaLock Backup Services) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:52:35 -0400 Subject: [Box Backup] bbstoreaccounts check fix wait log? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Chris, Awesome. Thanks for the explanation re "bbstoreaccounts check fix". All the remaining thoughts I had are moot, then, if it should not be run on an automated basis. Now I just need to wrangle my Clients to at least run bbackupquery "compare -aq" quit at least once in a while. A Windows Scheduled Task, with a mailing of the output to me, seems to be in order... Thanks again, Pete On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi Pete, > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011, Peter Jalajas, GigaLock Backup Services wrote: > >> As the box backup server admin, I think it's my responsibility to >> aggressively run bbstoreaccounts check fix for all the accounts on my >> server. > > I don't think it should be necessary to do that. I think it would be > papering over the cracks of any problems on the accounts (usually a bug in > bbstored), that should really be fixed properly (in the source code). > > Check and fix can take a long time and a lot of memory and should be run as > rarely as possible, ideally only when: > > * a problem is detected, > > * the reason for it has been identified, > > * the underlying bug that led to it has been fixed or is at least fully > documented, > > * and we've identified the proper steps to ensure that the backup client > re-uploads any damaged files as soon as possible, and for how long they are > not fully covered. > >> But I have trouble running "bbstoreaccounts check fix" on some of my >> larger accounts because they are locked much of the day doing backups. I'd >> rather not kill the bbstored process for those accounts, I don't think. >> ?Does bbstoreaccounts have something like a "wait" option that waits for the >> account to become unlocked and then runs the requested command? > > Unfortunately not at the moment. > >> And a log option so I can check the results afterwards? > > Not yet. Where should it log to? > >> I notice a KeepTryingForever variable in: >> http://www.boxbackup.com/trac/browser/box/trunk/bin/bbstored/HousekeepStoreAccount.cpp >> but that appears to be only for HouseKeeping. >> >> I see this line: >> ? ? ? while((c = getopt(argc, (char * const *)argv, "c:W:m")) != -1) >> in >> >> http://www.boxbackup.com/trac/browser/box/trunk/bin/bbstoreaccounts/bbstoreaccounts.cpp >> the W option, but I'm not sure how to use that. > > Sorry, that's just for warnings (log level), not waiting forever. > >> 100 extra credit points if bbstoreaccounts can spawn a thread waiting for >> that account to unlock and then meanwhile check the next account(s).... > > Hmm, maybe, but we don't currently use threads at all, and it might be > dangerous to start. Perhaps fork() is a better model. > > Cheers, Chris. > _______________________________________________ > Boxbackup mailing list > Boxbackup at boxbackup.org > http://lists.boxbackup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/boxbackup > From cam.lafit at azerttyu.net Mon Jun 27 19:50:01 2011 From: cam.lafit at azerttyu.net (cam.lafit at azerttyu.net) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:50:01 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] BoxBackupExplorer on github Message-ID: Hi everybody One month ago, i've found http://www.joonis.de/content/BoxBackupExplorer project. Very nice tool :) As this project is GPL but without official repository source, i have put it on github. If somebody want contribute to https://github.com/camlafit/BoxBackupExplorer door is open and will be very nice I've done some modifications to understand the tool, then i've extracted html presentation part (css, ...) and add js feature to hide hiddens files, and use tablesorter. Thanks Km From cam.lafit at azerttyu.net Mon Jun 27 19:53:33 2011 From: cam.lafit at azerttyu.net (cam.lafit at azerttyu.net) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:53:33 +0200 Subject: [Box Backup] Strange behaviour on date information ? Message-ID: Hi On a big file (about 20g) deleted, bbackupquery said me computer:~$ /usr/sbin/bbackupquery "list -odt home-" quit |grep myfile 000c2241 f-Xo-a 2011-06-06T22:53:04~2011-06-13T12:39:59 myfile.xyz Why we can see two dates separated by an ~ ? Is it normal ? Km From chris at qwirx.com Thu Jun 30 21:08:14 2011 From: chris at qwirx.com (Chris Wilson) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:08:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Box Backup] Strange behaviour on date information ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Km, On Mon, 27 Jun 2011, cam.lafit at azerttyu.net wrote: > On a big file (about 20g) deleted, bbackupquery said me > computer:~$ /usr/sbin/bbackupquery "list -odt home-" quit |grep myfile > 000c2241 f-Xo-a 2011-06-06T22:53:04~2011-06-13T12:39:59 myfile.xyz > > Why we can see two dates separated by an ~ ? Is it normal ? This means that new attributes were uploaded to the directory (i.e. the file attributes changed) on the second date. It could be that the file was modified or deleted on that date. Cheers, Chris. -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software |