[Box Backup] The backup daemon on server reported an unknown error (backup-ok).

Steve sjh_boxbackup at shic.co.uk
Fri Mar 18 11:14:59 GMT 2011


On 17/03/2011 21:32, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I've fixed the bbackupd-config script, but unless you want to run it
> again, using the new version in trunk, you'll need to edit the notify
> script that it generated (the one pointed to by NotifyScript in your
> config), find the following line:
>
>   elif [ "\$1" = backup-start -o "\$1" = backup-finish ]; then
>
> and change it to:
>
>   elif [ "\$1" = backup-start -o "\$1" = backup-finish \
>     -o "\$1" = backup-ok ]; then

I've opted to hack my notification script - without the escaped '$'
characters, of course... I'm happy to wait for the next release to be
able to cleanly configure again.  I'd hesitated to do this hack
previously as I'd wondered how 'backup-ok' differed from 'backup-finish'
and whether it really did document something I should care about.

>> As an aside, congratulations on a product, that - on the whole - is
>> exactly what I've been looking for for many years.  Obviously, polish
>> and performance improvements will be welcome... but, even as is,
>> boxbackup represents a major step forwards for me.
>
> Thanks, but I can't take much credit, I inherited most of this code
> from the inimitable Ben Summers and other contributors, and I just
> keep the code alive as best I can in my spare time :)

It's appreciated. :)
>> I wonder - is there a reason other than the pressure of time that
>> leads to only supporting clients under Windows?  Would it be hard to
>> port bbstored to windows?
>
> There is an unsupported Windows port of bbstored, which is built as
> part of running the unit tests. It does have serious limitations;
> because bbstored relies on the fork() model on Unix, which is not
> possible on Windows, the server is limited to one concurrent
> connection, and of course is not well tested. But you're welcome to
> try it. Why exactly do you want to run bbstored on Windows?

Hmmm... My reasons, first:  I've two almost-always-on PCs - one is a
(moderately inaccessible) Linux server - with Raid-1 - the other a
Windows desktop (on which I occasionally run virtualbox in seemless mode
for any linux-only UI work.)  The two boxes are separated by an Ethernet
run - and this means I have maximum high-bandwidth-connected separation
between these two physical locations.  If bbstored uses different
hardware, in a different location, it would mitigate more risks.

An architecture dependent on fork (while I only anticipate a single
client) suggests that work would be needed... and I've just realised
that I'd end-up storing the files on NTFS rather than ext* - though I'm
not sure what implications that has for me.  Perhaps I should look at
lightweight ways to expose block devices to my linux server over my LAN
- to get the same advantage of physical separation of backup from live
data... though I'm wary of this, too - since I want maximum reliability.




More information about the Boxbackup mailing list