[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Additional output from version 0.13.4

From: phowell
Subject: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] Additional output from version 0.13.4
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:40:53 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910


As far as I can see all the backup scripts are all exactly the same. There are about 15 of them in all and its only the one that produces this extra output. They all use rieserfs and many of them are using the same instance of samba where they are handling smb. The only difference I can see for the backup set that generates the extra output is that it spends a considerable amount of time transmitting to the host rdiff where as the other backup sets do not. Its almost as if it was having to start from scratch each time with the meta data... but why the remote should be transmitting to the host I cant think. I would have thought it would be the other way round.

When I get a bit of time to fiddle I will dump that backup set and start again and see if it continues to produce the output and a spend time transmitting.

thanks for the reply


Andrew K. Bressen wrote:

phowell <address@hidden> writes:
message). However this one directory consistently produces this
additional output. Is this something I should be worried about?

It looks perfectly legit to me. I'm not sure why this filesystem is giving you that message when others are not; is there anything different about it? I think most or all of my backups spit that message block. Ext2 vs. Ext3, ReiserFS, VFAT, etc.? Running on a box with a different kernel or libraries or python (that perhaps supports external attributes when your others don't) ?

Peter J. Howell
Technical Director Energy Auditing Agency Ltd. email address@hidden, tel 01908 690018, fax 01908 690019

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]