b-u-users — General discussion and support list for bu

Re: [bu-users] how to get, install most recent version of rbu

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 01:47:46PM -0700, jack byers wrote:
> Vince
> 
> I have to admit that I don't know how to get, install most recent version
> of rbu.
> 
> my version is  0.1      2008
> 
> I think you said or implied that some improvements have been made since
> then.
> 
> 
> thanks for help
> 
> Jack

Hi Jack.
You just download it and copy it to a directory in your command path,
like /usr/local/bin, and rename it to rbu.  There is no install script
yet.

No I haven't made any changes yet.  Version 0.1 is still the current
version.

[bu-users] how to get, install most recent version of rbu

[jack b. <by...@gm...>]

Vince

I have to admit that I don't know how to get, install most recent version
of rbu.

my version is  0.1      2008

I think you said or implied that some improvements have been made since
then.


thanks for help

Jack

Re: [bu-users] is this list still alive? (status of bu/rbu)

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 08:04:10PM -0700, Rajesh Manglore wrote:
> Vincent, 
> 
> I too have been using bu since 2002. For the first 5 years or so I was
> using it in a startup to backup about 6 servers with about 1.5TB of
> data and for the past 2 years have been using it for my personal data
> (couldn't find anything better :-). Imade several enhancements to bu
> in 2002 so that it would meet my requirements. Some of them were
> - incremental backup where the include list only contained files that
> were changed since the last backup. I found this to be significantly
> faster than using the -i option.

Hi Rajesh.

If I understand you correctly, your changes would change to purpose of
the include list from being able to pre-configure what files get backed
up to just a speed enhancer.  I don't know what version of bu you made
these changes to, but since you have been using bu since 2002, I am
guessing it is possible you did this prior to version 3.2 beta which was
released in June of 2002.  In 3.2 beta, I rewrote the main backup
routine in perl, substantially increasing the speed of incremental
backups by as much as 7 times over the old code.  The old code forked
and called 'cp' for every file.  The change log has the details.

Rbu uses rsync under the covers, which is also very fast at incremental
backups.


> - incremental backup of files changed since a specified time
>
> - keep previous versions of each file (option to compress) with the
> number specified in the config file (some more work and bu could have
> Time Machine functionality)


Along these lines, I have pondered the idea of adding a feature to have
a rotating group of versioned backups, where each time you backup,
rather than overwriting your previous backup, it would backup to a new
destination directory number N.  So if it was configured for 4 rotating
backups, after backing up to number 4, the next backup would overwrite
number 1 making it now number 4.  This would lessen the change of
replacing a good backup with a bad file and then not being recoverable.

Perhaps this feature would accomplish your goals as well?  Since you
could still recover older versions of files based on how many backup
versions you maintain.  With this feature, off the top of my head, I am
not sure if there would be much further use for only backing up files
changed since a specified time, since that could cause modified files
older than the specified time to not get backed up at all.

Although, technically, a fairly simple shell script wrapper could
probably be written to change the destination directory on a rotating
basis as well.  The destination can be set on the command line or as an
environment variable making it script friendly.   But having the feature
built into bu would be a bit simpler and require no skill or scripting
knowledge on the part of the user.


> - compress backed up files

I'm not sure about this one.  Seems like this could get really slow and
file space is so cheap now days with multi terabyte drives for around
$100.  Now, when I get around to updating the CD dump code, it *does*
have compression capability.


> Since the data was constantly changing, I also created cu (cleanup)
> from bu which deleted files from the backup disk which are no longer
> there in the original directories. I did try to add the cu
> functionality to bu but ended up breaking bu badly, so I just created
> a new script.

Rbu already has this feature.  The -s (sync) option.


> Just like Jorge I haven't found anything better than bu yet.
> 
> Thanks for your work. I can email you my version if you'd like.
> 
> Rajesh

Thanks for the feedback.  Based on your changes, I assume they are to
the original bu.  I appreciate the offer, but I plan to put any future
development efforts to rbu rather than do any more work on bu.  Unless,
of course, there was a significant bug discovered in bu that needed
fixed prior to rbu completely replacing bu.

Regards,
Vincent


> >________________________________
> > From: Vincent Stemen <bu...@hi...>
> >To: b-u...@li... 
> >Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 11:32 AM
> >Subject: Re: [bu-users] is this list still alive? (status of bu/rbu)
> > 
> >On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 09:34:22PM -0400, Jorge F?bregas wrote:
> >> On 07/15/2012 02:05 AM, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> >> > Greetings Jack and others that are still lurking on this list.
> >> 
> >> Hello Vincent , Jack & the others that are still around.
> >> 
> >> I just wanted to mention that I've been using bu for 10 years now (along
> >> with rbu when it came out).? I can't believe that I haven't changed my
> >> main backup program for 10 years!? During those years I changed Linux
> >> distros, mail-clients, web browsers and so on but never the backup
> >> program.? Why?? The bu/rbu combination has been rock solid and it has
> >> served me very well.
> >> 
> >> Once again, thanks for creating this Vincent.
> >> 
> >> Best regards,
> >> Jorge
> >
> >Thank you for the feedback.? It's always good to hear that my work is
> >benefiting others.
> >
> >Vincent

Re: [bu-users] is this list still alive? (status of bu/rbu)

[Rajesh M. <raj...@ya...>]

Vincent, 


I too have been using bu since 2002. For the first 5 years or so I was using it in a startup to backup about 6 servers with about 1.5TB of data and for the past 2 years have been using it for my personal data (couldn't find anything better :-). Imade several enhancements to bu in 2002 so that it would meet my requirements. Some of them were
- incremental backup where the include list only contained files that were changed since the last backup. I found this to be significantly faster than using the -i option.
- incremental backup of files changed since a specified time

- compress backed up files
- keep previous versions of each file (option to compress) with the number specified in the config file (some more work and bu could have Time Machine functionality)


Since the data was constantly changing, I also created cu (cleanup) from bu which deleted files from the backup disk which are no longer there in the original directories. I did try to add the cu functionality to bu but ended up breaking bu badly, so I just created a new script.

Just like Jorge I haven't found anything better than bu yet.

Thanks for your work. I can email you my version if you'd like.

Rajesh




>________________________________
> From: Vincent Stemen <bu...@hi...>
>To: b-u...@li... 
>Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 11:32 AM
>Subject: Re: [bu-users] is this list still alive? (status of bu/rbu)
> 
>On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 09:34:22PM -0400, Jorge F?bregas wrote:
>> On 07/15/2012 02:05 AM, Vincent Stemen wrote:
>> > Greetings Jack and others that are still lurking on this list.
>> 
>> Hello Vincent , Jack & the others that are still around.
>> 
>> I just wanted to mention that I've been using bu for 10 years now (along
>> with rbu when it came out).  I can't believe that I haven't changed my
>> main backup program for 10 years!  During those years I changed Linux
>> distros, mail-clients, web browsers and so on but never the backup
>> program.  Why?  The bu/rbu combination has been rock solid and it has
>> served me very well.
>> 
>> Once again, thanks for creating this Vincent.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Jorge
>
>Thank you for the feedback.  It's always good to hear that my work is
>benefiting others.
>
>Vincent
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Live Security Virtual Conference
>Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
>threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
>will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
>threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
>----
>bu-users mailing list
>Post to list:    b-u...@li...
>List management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/b-u-users
>Homepage:        http://www.hightek.org/bu
>
>
>

Re: [bu-users] is this list still alive? (status of bu/rbu)

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 09:34:22PM -0400, Jorge F?bregas wrote:
> On 07/15/2012 02:05 AM, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> > Greetings Jack and others that are still lurking on this list.
> 
> Hello Vincent , Jack & the others that are still around.
> 
> I just wanted to mention that I've been using bu for 10 years now (along
> with rbu when it came out).  I can't believe that I haven't changed my
> main backup program for 10 years!  During those years I changed Linux
> distros, mail-clients, web browsers and so on but never the backup
> program.  Why?  The bu/rbu combination has been rock solid and it has
> served me very well.
> 
> Once again, thanks for creating this Vincent.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jorge

Thank you for the feedback.  It's always good to hear that my work is
benefiting others.

Vincent

Re: [bu-users] is this list still alive? (status of bu/rbu)

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 04:54:11PM -0700, jack byers wrote:
> Vince, thanks for your reply.
> 
> It is not  clear to me why you do not use rbu for "complete backups".
> I understand that rbu is missing some features that would make it
> easier to use. But why not use rbu for complete backups?
> I have become used to rbu and prefer it.
> 
> Jack

Mainly because of not having include lists implemented in rbu yet.
I usually have a fairly long list of selective file patterns in my
include list for a full backup.  If you are backing up entire file
systems, rather than doing a surgical type full backup, then there isn't
much advantage to bu over rbu.  Unless you are doing scheduled backups
and would like logs and, optionally, an email status report of your
backups, which rbu can not do yet.  Although, rbu does pay attention to
your exclude list.  It is currently supported via rsync's
'--exclude-from' option.

BTW, another feature I plan to add to rbu is the ability to do
encryption for secure off site backups.  I have already recently written
a nice file pattern list based encryption tool for both for stand alone
use and for transparent use with rbu.

Re: [bu-users] is this list still alive? (status of bu/rbu)

[Jorge F. <jor...@gm...>]

On 07/15/2012 02:05 AM, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> Greetings Jack and others that are still lurking on this list.

Hello Vincent , Jack & the others that are still around.

I just wanted to mention that I've been using bu for 10 years now (along
with rbu when it came out).  I can't believe that I haven't changed my
main backup program for 10 years!  During those years I changed Linux
distros, mail-clients, web browsers and so on but never the backup
program.  Why?  The bu/rbu combination has been rock solid and it has
served me very well.

Once again, thanks for creating this Vincent.

Best regards,
Jorge

Re: [bu-users] is this list still alive? (status of bu/rbu)

[jack b. <by...@gm...>]

Vince, thanks for your reply.

It is not  clear to me why you do not use rbu for "complete backups".
I understand that rbu is missing some features that would make it
easier to use. But why not use rbu for complete backups?
I have become used to rbu and prefer it.

Jack

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Vincent Stemen <bu...@hi...> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:38:06AM -0700, jack byers wrote:
> > is bu list still alive?
> >
> > is rbu working, more complete?
>
> Greetings Jack and others that are still lurking on this list.
>
> Yes, it's still alive.  And yes.  Not more complete but different
> features.  I use rbu, usually many times a day.  I still plan to replace
> bu with rbu eventually, once I implement the rest of bu's features, but,
> for now I use a combination of the two.  I actually use rbu the most.
> Unlike bu, rbu can backup to another machine using rsync without the
> backup FS being NFS mounted.  This also makes it better suited for off
> site backups to a remote server.   It can also synchronize, i.e.  clean
> the backup FS of files that have been deleted from the source FS.
> However, you have to specify on the command line what files or
> directories you want to backup.
>
> Bu can be used with an include file that lists file patterns to backup,
> which is not implemented yet in rbu.  Also bu has some other features
> such as log files, etc.
>
> So, for now, I usually use rbu for backing up specific files and
> directories throughout the day as I work, and bu in cases where I want
> to do a complete backup of all important files on my system, such as
> from a cron job or sometimes manually running it, and it is practical to
> NFS mount my backup FS or the backup fs is locally mounted, such as
> a USB backup drive, etc.
>
> I regret that I have not had time to finish the rest of the features in
> rbu until now.  I have been thinking about it lately and am in hopes
> I can schedule some time to work on it before too much longer.
>
> I also plan to bring bu's CD/DVD RW dump features over to rbu eventually
> and bring them up to date.
>
> Regards,
> Vince
>
>

Re: [bu-users] is this list still alive? (status of bu/rbu)

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:38:06AM -0700, jack byers wrote:
> is bu list still alive?
> 
> is rbu working, more complete?

Greetings Jack and others that are still lurking on this list.

Yes, it's still alive.  And yes.  Not more complete but different
features.  I use rbu, usually many times a day.  I still plan to replace
bu with rbu eventually, once I implement the rest of bu's features, but,
for now I use a combination of the two.  I actually use rbu the most.
Unlike bu, rbu can backup to another machine using rsync without the
backup FS being NFS mounted.  This also makes it better suited for off
site backups to a remote server.   It can also synchronize, i.e.  clean
the backup FS of files that have been deleted from the source FS.
However, you have to specify on the command line what files or
directories you want to backup.

Bu can be used with an include file that lists file patterns to backup,
which is not implemented yet in rbu.  Also bu has some other features
such as log files, etc.

So, for now, I usually use rbu for backing up specific files and
directories throughout the day as I work, and bu in cases where I want
to do a complete backup of all important files on my system, such as
from a cron job or sometimes manually running it, and it is practical to
NFS mount my backup FS or the backup fs is locally mounted, such as
a USB backup drive, etc.

I regret that I have not had time to finish the rest of the features in
rbu until now.  I have been thinking about it lately and am in hopes
I can schedule some time to work on it before too much longer.

I also plan to bring bu's CD/DVD RW dump features over to rbu eventually
and bring them up to date.

Regards,
Vince

[bu-users] is this list still allve?

[jack b. <by...@gm...>]

is bu list still alive?

is rbu working, more complete?

Re: [bu-users] Another use for BU

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 07:31:34AM -0500, Tony Willoughby wrote:
> 
> Vincent Stemen wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:29:10AM -0500, Tony Willoughby wrote:
> >> Just thought I'd explain a new use for BU that I've found.
> >>
> >> I use it with my dropbox.com account.  Dropbox will backup all of 
> >> ~/Dropbox to the cloud.  I populate ~/Dropbox with a cron job running 
> >> rbu.  It's nice because rbu allows me to easily filter out stuff that I 
> >> don't want uploaded.
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Tony Willoughby to...@po...
> > 
> > Hi Tony.  I assume you mean a cron job running *bu*, since rbu does not
> > have filtering yet.
> > 
> > I do something similar to keep our web hosting VPS server backed up.
> > I use bu, for the filtering, to backup to a local directory on the
> > server, then use rsync to pull the changes to a backup dir on my local
> > machine. 
> > 
> > You can also use rbu directly with services similar to dropbox if they
> > support rsync, such as rsync.net.  Unfortunately, it is going to be
> > a while longer before I can allocate time to get back on rbu to add bu's
> > include/exclude lists.  So, to have filtering for now, we are stuck with
> > using bu to a local (or NFS) directory as you are doing, and then
> > rbu'ing to the off site backup server.
> > 
> > - Vince
> 
> I'm using rbu.  Are you sure it doesn't support filtering?
> 
> I've seen a couple of cases where something is backed up when it 
> shouldn't, but overall filtering seems to work.
> 
> I'll try bu for laughs.

Well...  I thought I was sure, but it looks like you are right.
I glanced over the code again and ran a couple tests, and exclude lists
are implemented and working, using rsync's "--exclude-from" feature
(using bu's normal Exclude file).  I forgot I had already implemented
it.  Guess I have slept to many times since then.  I haven't run any
extensive tests to see how well rsync's built in filtering works though.

However, include lists are not implemented yet.  I played around with it
for a few minutes, just to see, and could not get include lists to work
the way I want with rsync.  So we are stuck with specifying the files on
the command line for now.  

When I get time to do more significant work on it, I may do my own
filtering, like I did with bu, and add the ability to use full regular
expressions in include/exclude lists rather than using rsync's simple
fnmatch() style patterns.

- Vince

Re: [bu-users] Another use for BU

[Tony W. <to...@po...>]

Vincent Stemen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:29:10AM -0500, Tony Willoughby wrote:
>> Just thought I'd explain a new use for BU that I've found.
>>
>> I use it with my dropbox.com account.  Dropbox will backup all of 
>> ~/Dropbox to the cloud.  I populate ~/Dropbox with a cron job running 
>> rbu.  It's nice because rbu allows me to easily filter out stuff that I 
>> don't want uploaded.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Tony Willoughby to...@po...
> 
> Hi Tony.  I assume you mean a cron job running *bu*, since rbu does not
> have filtering yet.
> 
> I do something similar to keep our web hosting VPS server backed up.
> I use bu, for the filtering, to backup to a local directory on the
> server, then use rsync to pull the changes to a backup dir on my local
> machine. 
> 
> You can also use rbu directly with services similar to dropbox if they
> support rsync, such as rsync.net.  Unfortunately, it is going to be
> a while longer before I can allocate time to get back on rbu to add bu's
> include/exclude lists.  So, to have filtering for now, we are stuck with
> using bu to a local (or NFS) directory as you are doing, and then
> rbu'ing to the off site backup server.
> 
> - Vince

I'm using rbu.  Are you sure it doesn't support filtering?

I've seen a couple of cases where something is backed up when it 
shouldn't, but overall filtering seems to work.

I'll try bu for laughs.



-- 
Tony Willoughby to...@po...

"That's where Japanzees live."
          -My four year old describing Japan.

Re: [bu-users] Another use for BU

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:29:10AM -0500, Tony Willoughby wrote:
> 
> Just thought I'd explain a new use for BU that I've found.
> 
> I use it with my dropbox.com account.  Dropbox will backup all of 
> ~/Dropbox to the cloud.  I populate ~/Dropbox with a cron job running 
> rbu.  It's nice because rbu allows me to easily filter out stuff that I 
> don't want uploaded.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tony Willoughby to...@po...

Hi Tony.  I assume you mean a cron job running *bu*, since rbu does not
have filtering yet.

I do something similar to keep our web hosting VPS server backed up.
I use bu, for the filtering, to backup to a local directory on the
server, then use rsync to pull the changes to a backup dir on my local
machine. 

You can also use rbu directly with services similar to dropbox if they
support rsync, such as rsync.net.  Unfortunately, it is going to be
a while longer before I can allocate time to get back on rbu to add bu's
include/exclude lists.  So, to have filtering for now, we are stuck with
using bu to a local (or NFS) directory as you are doing, and then
rbu'ing to the off site backup server.

- Vince

[bu-users] Another use for BU

[Tony W. <to...@po...>]

Just thought I'd explain a new use for BU that I've found.

I use it with my dropbox.com account.  Dropbox will backup all of 
~/Dropbox to the cloud.  I populate ~/Dropbox with a cron job running 
rbu.  It's nice because rbu allows me to easily filter out stuff that I 
don't want uploaded.


-- 
Tony Willoughby to...@po...

"Next time, I would rather break than bend."
  - Warren Zevon

Re: [bu-users] rbu instructions

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:37:55PM -0800, jack byers wrote:
> Vincent Stemen responded
> >Another thing you could do is try "rbu" to see if you get a similar
> >result.  rbu is the new rsync based bu that is intended to eventually
> >replace bu.
> 
> >   http://hightek.org/bu/rbu-20080528
> 
> it appears to be    .../bu/download/rbu-20080528

Sorry about that.  Yes it is
http://hightek.org/bu/download/rbu-20080528.

> but I cant seem to actually download it.
> I can view the script and copy/paste it to a file

>From the http logs, it looks like you are running Firefox.  Try right
clicking on the file and select "Save Link As...".  


> >Just rename it to rbu and copy it to some place in your command path
> >like /usr/local/bin or or specify the path to it when you run it.
> 
> ok, if I use /usr/local/bin
> and have that script copied to my system in a file named  rbu
> I just put it as is into /usr/local/bin ?

Yes.


> and then what?
> here is where I am rusty: how to modify and what permissions on the file?
> 
> reboot to have it take effect ?       or     source  ...../rbu  ?
> 
> all operations as  user  byers?
> 
> thanks for help
> Jack

It is rare you should ever have to reboot Unix, unless the system
crashes :-).

Just set the mode to executable.  i.e.
    # chmod 755 /usr/local/bin/rbu

Make sure /usr/local/bin is in your command search path.
    # echo $PATH

Since you are running Linux, I assume you are using bash for your shell,
which I think automatically updates the command path cache for new
commands.  If not, try running
    # rehash

[bu-users] rbu instructions

[jack b. <by...@gm...>]

Vincent Stemen responded
>Another thing you could do is try "rbu" to see if you get a similar
>result.  rbu is the new rsync based bu that is intended to eventually
>replace bu.

>   http://hightek.org/bu/rbu-20080528

it appears to be    .../bu/download/rbu-20080528
but I cant seem to actually download it.
I can view the script and copy/paste it to a file


>Just rename it to rbu and copy it to some place in your command path
>like /usr/local/bin or or specify the path to it when you run it.

ok, if I use /usr/local/bin
and have that script copied to my system in a file named  rbu
I just put it as is into /usr/local/bin ?
and then what?
here is where I am rusty: how to modify and what permissions on the file?

reboot to have it take effect ?       or     source  ...../rbu  ?

all operations as  user  byers?

thanks for help
Jack

Re: [bu-users] bu installed as user, running as root..

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:17:13AM -0800, jack byers wrote:
> I am experiencing strange bu results,
> most likely bc of  how I am running bu.
> Installed as user byers
> [byers@bootp ~]$ echo $PATH
> /usr/lib/qt-3.3/bin:/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/home/byers/pkg/bin:/home/byers/bin:/home/byers/pkg/bin
> 
> running bu as root, but root via (su)   not via (su -)
> bc I didnt change root's path
> In the past I thot I had run su as root exactly this way without problems
> And I haven't changed bu config  as far as I can recall.
> 
> Now in /rh8   which contains lib, var ... from an old kubuntu
> test backing up     lib     to an external usb disk
> su
> # bu -d /media/disk-1/bukubuinst lib
> 
> copies a link, but not the accompanying file in this same lib dir
> 
> eg
> ]# cd /rh8
> 
> [root@bootp rh8]# cd lib
> [root@bootp lib]# pwd
> /rh8/lib
> [root@bootp lib]# ls -l *kid*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    15 Dec 27  2006 libblkid.so.1 -> libblkid.so.1.0
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27656 May 12  2006 libblkid.so.1.0
> 
> both a link file and the file itself are seen
> 
> 
> the result on usb disk:
> root@bootp lib]# pwd
> /media/disk-1/bukubuinst/rh8/lib
> [root@bootp lib]# ls -l *kid*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Feb 24 09:04 libblkid.so.1 -> libblkid.so.1.0
> [root@bootp lib]#
>  only the link
> 
> and this is same for many other links,files inside /rh8/lib
> 
> advice?  am I just doing something plain wrong
> by not having the  bu /pkg in root's path?
> 
> 
> Jack

I don't see anything you did wrong.  In addition to bu, make sure "pax"
and "perl" are in the command path.  I would think it would error and
abort, if not.

Unless your *pax* is somehow broken, since bu relies on it.

I just tested on BSD, with

  su
  mkdir /butest
  cd /usr
  bu -d /butest lib

And it worked fine.  Does the output on the screen show the links being backed
up?  Or did you check the log (usually in /var/log/bu/)?


If you don't get anywhere, try rebooting.  It is Linux :-).  I know that
sounds like a joke but actually, often when somebody reports some weird
behaviour with bu that nobody else has experienced, it has ended up
being some random Linux anomoly.  

Another thing you could do is try "rbu" to see if you get a similar
result.  rbu is the new rsync based bu that is intended to eventually
replace bu.

    http://hightek.org/bu/rbu-20080528

You have to have rsync installed.  If you try it, the command line is
slightely different.

    rbu d=/media/disk-1/bukubuinst lib

rbu does not have include/exclude lists, etc., yet.  I have focused
first on features that bu does not have.

[bu-users] bu installed as user, running as root..

[jack b. <by...@gm...>]

I am experiencing strange bu results,
most likely bc of  how I am running bu.
Installed as user byers
[byers@bootp ~]$ echo $PATH
/usr/lib/qt-3.3/bin:/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/home/byers/pkg/bin:/home/byers/bin:/home/byers/pkg/bin

running bu as root, but root via (su)   not via (su -)
bc I didnt change root's path
In the past I thot I had run su as root exactly this way without problems
And I haven't changed bu config  as far as I can recall.

Now in /rh8   which contains lib, var ... from an old kubuntu
test backing up     lib     to an external usb disk
su
# bu -d /media/disk-1/bukubuinst lib

copies a link, but not the accompanying file in this same lib dir

eg
]# cd /rh8

[root@bootp rh8]# cd lib
[root@bootp lib]# pwd
/rh8/lib
[root@bootp lib]# ls -l *kid*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root    15 Dec 27  2006 libblkid.so.1 -> libblkid.so.1.0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27656 May 12  2006 libblkid.so.1.0

both a link file and the file itself are seen


the result on usb disk:
root@bootp lib]# pwd
/media/disk-1/bukubuinst/rh8/lib
[root@bootp lib]# ls -l *kid*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Feb 24 09:04 libblkid.so.1 -> libblkid.so.1.0
[root@bootp lib]#
 only the link

and this is same for many other links,files inside /rh8/lib

advice?  am I just doing something plain wrong
by not having the  bu /pkg in root's path?


Jack

Re: [bu-users] trivial restore test failing

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 02:19:27PM -0600, jack byers wrote:
> so, I now  cant duplicate the problem!
> 
> just to confirm, i also then rm'd the files just bu'd to /restorebu
> [root@bootp restorebu]# pwd
> /restorebu
> [root@bootp restorebu]# ls
> home
> [root@bootp restorebu]# rm -rf home
> [root@bootp restorebu]#
> 
> and then redid the orginal (if not verbatim)
> [root@bootp byers]# bu -d /restorebu drhmail09
> 
> Incremental:      on
> Backup directory: /restorebu
> 
> /home/byers/drhmail09 -> /restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09
> /home/byers/drhmail09/.#rhjan09 -> /restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09/.#rhjan09
> /home/byers/drhmail09/#rhjan09# -> /restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09/#rhjan09#
> /home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09 -> /restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09
> 
> [root@bootp byers]#
> 
> so now it is working as it should, no explanation as to
> original failure.

I guess we will just have to chalk it up to another one of those random
unexplained glitches in Linux.  Linux can really have you chasing
shadows in your applications when there is really no bug in the app.  

For example, back when we ran Linux, for years we had an unexplained bug
in our in-house cad system we use for circuit board layout, where when
you would hit a certain zoom level it would just wig out and stop
redrawing the screen and you could no longer zoom in or out.  We could
find no bug in the code to explain it and gave up on finding it for
a long time and just worked around it.  This bug went on for years
through major revisions of Linux.  At the time, we never considered it
might be caused by an OS bug.

Then after major show stopper bugs, such as severe memory management
problems, non-working NFS, multiple system freezes per day, etc., etc.,
finally forced us to change to BSD, much to our surprise, the bug in our
CAD system went away, and never came back.  Not only with a native
compilation, but even when running the Linux binary on BSD under Linux
emulation, the bug was gone.  We tested under Linux emulation just to
see if it might have been from a library it was linked to.  If the same
bug existed on BSD with the Linux binary under emulation, it would point
to a library rather than a core OS problem such as memory management or
something.

I still from time to time get email about a problem with bu that turns
out to be more core Linux OS bugs.  The last one I remember was where
a user was getting his process table filled with zombie processes when
running bu.  It turned out to be yet another ancient bug that resurfaced
in Linux that has not existed in other UNIX's for many years.

Re: [bu-users] trivial restore test failing

[jack b. <by...@gm...>]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Vincent Stemen <bu...@hi...> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 05:00:27PM -0800, jack byers wrote:
> > Vincent, thanks for response
> > [root@bootp /]# bu --help
> >
> > bu  Version 3.4 beta   Pronounced B U
> > Copyright (c) 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005  Vincent Stemen
> >
> > I understand the  "entire source path"
> > and also that   /backupbu  will be prepended
> >
> > but i dont understand why i  cant get anything
> > trying to bu from the /backupbu  to the /restorebu
> >
> > Is there a problem with running as root?  which is what i did.
> > even tho these are dir,file under  byers.
> > permissions problem?
> > [root@bootp /]# pwd
> > /
> > [root@bootp /]# ls -ld /backupbu
> > drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Jan 19 10:29 /backupbu
> > [root@bootp /]#
> >
> > Maybe it is better to just rely on  cp  .... for restore.
> > I can deal with that.
> > but I must have some config or permissions problem?
> >
> > regards,
> > Jack
>
> No. It does not matter if you are root.  That's weird.  I cannot
> reproduce the problem you describe on Dragonfly BSD or FreeBSD.  No
> access Linux right now.
>
> Can you backup files files from other directories straight to /restorebu?
> If so, I don't see why backing up to /restorebu from /backupbu would be
> any different.
>
> From what you described, /restorebu should have been empty, so it
> couldn't be an issue relating to the file modification timestamps.
>
> If there was a permissions problem, you should have gotten errors
> indicating so.
>
> You could try rbu if you want, just to see if you experience a similar
> problem.  You can download it from http://hightek.org/bu/rbu-20080528.
> It is the new rsync based bu that will eventually replace bu.  This is
> not really an official release, so it's not packaged with install
> scripts.  Just download it and rename it to rbu.  It has been stable for
> our day to day usage, but does not have Include/Exclude lists yet.
>
> You use it basically just like bu except for command line settings such
> as the backup directory.  They use variable setting syntax.
>
> e.g.
>    rbu dest=/backupbu file ...
>    rather than
>    bu -d /backupbu file ...


yes, as root can backup to /restorebu
root@bootp ~]# cd /home/byers
[root@bootp byers]# cd drhmail08
[root@bootp drhmail08]# ls *dec*
rhdec08  rhdec08~  rhdec08old
[root@bootp drhmail08]# bu -d /restorebu rhdec08

Incremental:      on
Backup directory: /restorebu

/home/byers/drhmail08/rhdec08 -> /restorebu/home/byers/drhmail08/rhdec08

[root@bootp drhmail08]#
do another file:
root@bootp byers]# bu -d /restorebu drhmail09

Incremental:      on
Backup directory: /restorebu

/home/byers/drhmail09 -> /restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09
/home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09 -> /restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09

[root@bootp byers]#


then tried  to bu from /restorebu  to a new dir /restorebu2
and it also worked.  So i dont get the previos problem!?
[root@bootp drhmail09]# mkdir /restorebu2
[root@bootp drhmail09]# bu -d /restorebu2 /restorebu

Incremental:      on
Backup directory: /restorebu2

/restorebu -> /restorebu2/restorebu
/restorebu/.autofsck -> /restorebu2/restorebu/.autofsck
/restorebu/.autorelabel -> /restorebu2/restorebu/.autorelabel
/restorebu/home -> /restorebu2/restorebu/home
/restorebu/home/byers -> /restorebu2/restorebu/home/byers
/restorebu/home/byers/drhmail08 ->
/restorebu2/restorebu/home/byers/drhmail08
/restorebu/home/byers/drhmail08/rhdec08 ->
/restorebu2/restorebu/home/byers/drhmail08/rhdec08
/restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09 ->
/restorebu2/restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09
/restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09 ->
/restorebu2/restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09

[root@bootp drhmail09]#


so, I now  cant duplicate the problem!

just to confirm, i also then rm'd the files just bu'd to /restorebu
[root@bootp restorebu]# pwd
/restorebu
[root@bootp restorebu]# ls
home
[root@bootp restorebu]# rm -rf home
[root@bootp restorebu]#

and then redid the orginal (if not verbatim)
[root@bootp byers]# bu -d /restorebu drhmail09

Incremental:      on
Backup directory: /restorebu

/home/byers/drhmail09 -> /restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09
/home/byers/drhmail09/.#rhjan09 -> /restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09/.#rhjan09
/home/byers/drhmail09/#rhjan09# -> /restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09/#rhjan09#
/home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09 -> /restorebu/home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09

[root@bootp byers]#

so now it is working as it should, no explanation as to
original failure.
I dont know why that
/home/byers/drhmail09/.#rhjan09  is there
lrwxrwxrwx  1 byers byers     39 Jan 20 09:39 .#rhjan09 -> by...@bo....3481:1231786181


Jack

Re: [bu-users] trivial restore test failing

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 05:00:27PM -0800, jack byers wrote:
> Vincent, thanks for response
> [root@bootp /]# bu --help
> 
> bu  Version 3.4 beta   Pronounced B U
> Copyright (c) 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005  Vincent Stemen
> 
> I understand the  "entire source path"
> and also that   /backupbu  will be prepended
> 
> but i dont understand why i  cant get anything
> trying to bu from the /backupbu  to the /restorebu
> 
> Is there a problem with running as root?  which is what i did.
> even tho these are dir,file under  byers.
> permissions problem?
> [root@bootp /]# pwd
> /
> [root@bootp /]# ls -ld /backupbu
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Jan 19 10:29 /backupbu
> [root@bootp /]#
> 
> Maybe it is better to just rely on  cp  .... for restore.
> I can deal with that.
> but I must have some config or permissions problem?
> 
> regards,
> Jack

No. It does not matter if you are root.  That's weird.  I cannot
reproduce the problem you describe on Dragonfly BSD or FreeBSD.  No
access Linux right now. 

Can you backup files files from other directories straight to /restorebu?
If so, I don't see why backing up to /restorebu from /backupbu would be
any different.

>From what you described, /restorebu should have been empty, so it
couldn't be an issue relating to the file modification timestamps.

If there was a permissions problem, you should have gotten errors
indicating so.

You could try rbu if you want, just to see if you experience a similar
problem.  You can download it from http://hightek.org/bu/rbu-20080528.
It is the new rsync based bu that will eventually replace bu.  This is
not really an official release, so it's not packaged with install
scripts.  Just download it and rename it to rbu.  It has been stable for
our day to day usage, but does not have Include/Exclude lists yet.

You use it basically just like bu except for command line settings such
as the backup directory.  They use variable setting syntax.

e.g.
    rbu dest=/backupbu file ...
    rather than
    bu -d /backupbu file ...

Re: [bu-users] trivial restore test failing

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 04:01:37PM -0600, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:29:36AM -0800, jack byers wrote:
> 
> Second, I suspect you are going to get the results you are expecting,
> when trying to restore in this way.

Sorry. I meant to say I suspect you are *not* going to get the results
you are expecting.

Re: [bu-users] trivial restore test failing

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:29:36AM -0800, jack byers wrote:
> I havent used bu now for more than a year or two
> I want to test backing up a single dir with a single file to  /backupbu
> 
> and then to test restoring that backed up copy  to  /restorebu
> 
> the backup part goes as expected,
> but the restore part  fails-- "No new or changed files to back up"
> 
> I am probably misusing the bu tool, or doing something really stupid.
> 
> [root@bootp byers]# mkdir /backupbu
> [root@bootp byers]# mkdir /restorebu
> [root@bootp byers]# bu -d /backupbu drhmail09
> 
> Incremental:      on
> Backup directory: /backupbu
> 
> /home/byers/drhmail09 -> /backupbu/home/byers/drhmail09
> /home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09 -> /backupbu/home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09
> 
> 
> 
> ok for the backup
> 
> now try to restore from this /backupbu    to /restorebu  also using bu:
> 
> [root@bootp byers]# pwd
> /backupbu/home/byers
> [root@bootp byers]# bu -d /restorebu drhmail09
> 
> Incremental:      on
> Backup directory: /restorebu
> 
> No new or changed files to back up
> 
> [root@bootp byers]#
> 
> same response if try from  the top:
> root@bootp restorebu]# cd ..
> [root@bootp /]# bu -d /restorebu /backupbu
> 
> Incremental:      on
> Backup directory: /restorebu
> 
> No new or changed files to back up
> 
> [root@bootp /]#
> 
> 
> 
> I must be missing something really obvious
> any help  much appreciated
> Jack

Hi Jack.

Two things.  First, what version of bu are you running?  I just tried it
with "3.4 beta" and it worked.  I reproduced the same scenario you gave
me, even with the same file names.

Second, I suspect you are going to get the results you are expecting,
when trying to restore in this way.  If you are expecting to restore the
files back to their original locations under /restorebu where the
directory tree matches /backupbu, doing it with bu will not work.
Remember, bu reproduces the entire source path to each file underneath
the destination directory.

So going the opposite direction, you get:

$ pwd
/backupbu/u1/home/vince
$ bu -d /restorebu drhmail09

Incremental:      on 
Backup directory: /restorebu

/backupbu/u1/home/vince/drhmail09 -> /restorebu/backupbu/u1/home/vince/drhmail09
/backupbu/u1/home/vince/drhmail09/rhjan09 -> /restorebu/backupbu/u1/home/vince/drhmail09/rhjan09

So the backup directory, /backupbu, gets prepended to the file paths
inside /restorebu, since that is where the files are being backed up
from, rather than going in /restorebu/u1/home/vince/.

If that is OK for you then this should work, but I usually just use
cp, tar, cpio, or pax to restore files from the backup directory since
I have never added actual restore features to bu yet.

[bu-users] trivial restore test failing

[jack b. <by...@gm...>]

I havent used bu now for more than a year or two
I want to test backing up a single dir with a single file to  /backupbu

and then to test restoring that backed up copy  to  /restorebu

the backup part goes as expected,
but the restore part  fails-- "No new or changed files to back up"

I am probably misusing the bu tool, or doing something really stupid.

[root@bootp byers]# mkdir /backupbu
[root@bootp byers]# mkdir /restorebu
[root@bootp byers]# bu -d /backupbu drhmail09

Incremental:      on
Backup directory: /backupbu

/home/byers/drhmail09 -> /backupbu/home/byers/drhmail09
/home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09 -> /backupbu/home/byers/drhmail09/rhjan09



ok for the backup

now try to restore from this /backupbu    to /restorebu  also using bu:

[root@bootp byers]# pwd
/backupbu/home/byers
[root@bootp byers]# bu -d /restorebu drhmail09

Incremental:      on
Backup directory: /restorebu

No new or changed files to back up

[root@bootp byers]#

same response if try from  the top:
root@bootp restorebu]# cd ..
[root@bootp /]# bu -d /restorebu /backupbu

Incremental:      on
Backup directory: /restorebu

No new or changed files to back up

[root@bootp /]#



I must be missing something really obvious
any help  much appreciated
Jack

[bu-users] Switching list back to SourceForge

[Vincent S. <bu...@hi...>]

Hi. Everybody.  Sorry about that spam mail.  I am switching back from
google groups to the SourceForge until I get around to eventually
setting up and hosting my own mailing lists.  It has it's little
problems, but at least we were not getting spammed by users not even
subscribed to the list.  I just checked the bu-users google group and it
is set to not allow posting if you are not a member, yet I had six spams
in my mail box today.  I am probably going to just delete the google
group.

To post to the list, just go back to using the original address of
  b-u...@li...

- Vince