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

Re: [bu-users] Possible to backup to another machine?

[<al...@ge...>]

 > Vincent Stemen writes:
 > > al...@ge... wrote:
 > >
 > > Hello all.
 > > Right now I don't have a disk that I can mount on my machine.  I have
 > > access through ssh/scp to another machine with large backup disks, but
 > > the computer manager does not want that they be mounted on my
 > > computer.  Is it possible to use bu to backup to that machine?  I'm
 > > afraid it's not, but in this case would it be possible to extend bu so
 > > it could do it?  If so, would it be very difficult or extremely
 > > difficult :-)
 > >
 > > Regards,
 > > Alain
 >
 > Off the top of my head, I suspect it would be possible by streaming the
 > files to something like rsync rather than pax.  It would take some
 > research and experimentation.
 >
 > I am sure it could be done using a separate call to [rs]cp for each file
 > but I moved away from doing that with bu because incremental backups are
 > up to 7 times faster by directly statting the dates and streaming the
 > names of the newer files to a single pax process.  That was with direct
 > file access from a mounted nfs/local FS.  With rcp, for incremental
 > backups, it would be even slower because it would have to do a separate
 > remote execution of the shell stat command to get the file date for each
 > file as well.  Of course the stat issue would be the same with rsync
 > unless I ran rsync in update mode and let it take care of choosing what
 > has changed.  Of course this takes some of the control away from bu.
 > It would take some thought and tests to determine if I could retain all
 > of bu's features like detailed logging, etc.  I should still be able to
 > use the bu Exclude patterns because rsync does have the ability to pass
 > exclude patterns to it.
 >
 > I am not sure it is something I will likely have time to look into
 > extensively very soon.  I still have some other features I have been
 > promising for bu for some time, that I need to implement first.
 > However, my priorities could change because it would be a nice feature
 > for backing up to a remote machine over the Internet.  Something we have
 > begun to need from time to time ourselves.
 >
 > If anybody has any ideas for other methods of implementation I am open
 > to hearing them.
 >
 > I am not sure how rsync does it without a special daemon on the remote
 > end.  If the rsh/ssh API libraries provide the ability stat, and copy
 > multiple files while holding the same connection open, it would be worth
 > looking into.  I did find there is a perl rsync module as well as a perl
 > ssh module that would need to be researched.  Or there may be the option
 > of writing something in C.
 >
 > Currently, for example, the way I keep our remote web server backed up
 > to our local machines is by running bu on the webhost to a local backup
 > directory.  Then I periodically run rsync on our local machine to backup
 > new files in the remote webhost:/backup directory to the local machine
 > using a script with a command something like this:
 >
 >     rsync --rsh=ssh -auv root@webhost:/backup/ /backups/webhost
 >
 >
 > If your computer manager refuses to allow NFS because of security
 > concerns, you might want to suggest they look into AFS.
 >
 >     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_file_system
 >     http://www.openafs.org/
 >
 > Of course, it would not surprise me if their concern is stability if they
 > are running Linux.  Linux has had NFS stability issues for years.  It
 > was _one_ of the main issues that forced us over to BSD a long time ago,
 > after not being able to complete backups for months because our Linux
 > file server crashed every time, with heavy NFS access.  After years,
 > they still have not fixed the bugs.  We are using a modern Linux based
 > TV server for our DVR (because we do not have BSD drivers for the
 > Hauppauge mpeg encoder cards).  When copying a large mpeg file to/from
 > a fast machine to a slower machine the Linux box still hangs.  So we
 > just use it as a dedicated box for streaming the data to our BSD
 > machines, and use them for the video file servers.
 >
 > - Vincent

Thank you very much, Vincent, for the very detailed answer.  It's way
enough to convince me I should probably not try to do it myself, at least
before trying harder on my computer manager, or perhaps buy a disk.

Alain

PS: I have not received my initial email through the list (that is,
the one to which you answered, starting with "Hello all. Right now...").  I
wonder if this is normal (but I remember I used to receive those
emails in the past), although I do receive the emails from the other
list's members) or if this could be related to the management list's
problems we discussed in private.

Re: [bu-users] Possible to backup to another machine?

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

On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:54:51PM +0100, al...@ge... wrote:
> Hello all.
> 
> Right now I don't have a disk that I can mount on my machine.  I have
> access through ssh/scp to another machine with large backup disks, but
> the computer manager does not want that they be mounted on my
> computer.  Is it possible to use bu to backup to that machine?  I'm
> afraid it's not, but in this case would it be possible to extend bu so
> it could do it?  If so, would it be very difficult or extremely
> difficult :-)
> 
> Regards,
> Alain

Off the top of my head, I suspect it would be possible by streaming the
files to something like rsync rather than pax.  It would take some
research and experimentation.

I am sure it could be done using a separate call to [rs]cp for each file
but I moved away from doing that with bu because incremental backups are
up to 7 times faster by directly statting the dates and streaming the
names of the newer files to a single pax process.  That was with direct
file access from a mounted nfs/local FS.  With rcp, for incremental
backups, it would be even slower because it would have to do a separate
remote execution of the shell stat command to get the file date for each
file as well.  Of course the stat issue would be the same with rsync
unless I ran rsync in update mode and let it take care of choosing what
has changed.  Of course this takes some of the control away from bu.
It would take some thought and tests to determine if I could retain all
of bu's features like detailed logging, etc.  I should still be able to
use the bu Exclude patterns because rsync does have the ability to pass
exclude patterns to it.

I am not sure it is something I will likely have time to look into
extensively very soon.  I still have some other features I have been
promising for bu for some time, that I need to implement first.
However, my priorities could change because it would be a nice feature
for backing up to a remote machine over the Internet.  Something we have
begun to need from time to time ourselves.

If anybody has any ideas for other methods of implementation I am open 
to hearing them.

I am not sure how rsync does it without a special daemon on the remote
end.  If the rsh/ssh API libraries provide the ability stat, and copy
multiple files while holding the same connection open, it would be worth
looking into.  I did find there is a perl rsync module as well as a perl
ssh module that would need to be researched.  Or there may be the option
of writing something in C.

Currently, for example, the way I keep our remote web server backed up
to our local machines is by running bu on the webhost to a local backup
directory.  Then I periodically run rsync on our local machine to backup
new files in the remote webhost:/backup directory to the local machine
using a script with a command something like this:

    rsync --rsh=ssh -auv root@webhost:/backup/ /backups/webhost


If your computer manager refuses to allow NFS because of security
concerns, you might want to suggest they look into AFS.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_file_system
    http://www.openafs.org/

Of course, it would not surprise me if their concern is stability if they
are running Linux.  Linux has had NFS stability issues for years.  It
was _one_ of the main issues that forced us over to BSD a long time ago,
after not being able to complete backups for months because our Linux
file server crashed every time, with heavy NFS access.  After years,
they still have not fixed the bugs.  We are using a modern Linux based
TV server for our DVR (because we do not have BSD drivers for the
Hauppauge mpeg encoder cards).  When copying a large mpeg file to/from
a fast machine to a slower machine the Linux box still hangs.  So we
just use it as a dedicated box for streaming the data to our BSD
machines, and use them for the video file servers.

- Vincent

[bu-users] Possible to backup to another machine?

[<al...@ge...>]

Hello all.

Right now I don't have a disk that I can mount on my machine.  I have
access through ssh/scp to another machine with large backup disks, but
the computer manager does not want that they be mounted on my
computer.  Is it possible to use bu to backup to that machine?  I'm
afraid it's not, but in this case would it be possible to extend bu so
it could do it?  If so, would it be very difficult or extremely
difficult :-)

Regards,
Alain

Re: [bu-users] Happy Camper

[Mel S. <kd...@nw...>]

Well this is a production box about to be replaced last of seven that 
have been upgraded in the past 12 months. 3.3 works fine I have a cron 
task setup to run BU and the task does not go to /dev/null so I get a 
notice on my personal box and all I have to do is open the door go into 
the lab and check the log. Easier to get Slack11 up than to do libs IMHO

-- 
System Janitor/Network Plumber http://www.nwla.com
Linux User #25446    Linux 2.6.18

Re: [bu-users] Happy Camper

[Stefan M. <st...@mo...>]

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:05:16AM -0600, Mel Sojka wrote:
> Well on the Slackware 9 box I can't compile PAX  GCC libs to old to 
> handle it, But did get 3.3 up and runniong on it no problem Just wish 
> 3.3 had the email option that makes it nice.

I may be heading slightly off topic, but it's a quiet list, so please bear
with me guys :)

What problems are you having bulding PAX? Slackware 9 is based on GCC 3 and 
glibc 2.3.1 which are, whilst not recent, not so terribly old either and 
shouldn't create issues.

It could simply be that you need to upgrade a few libraries, which can easily
be done from source, into /usr/local/lib if you are at all paranoid about 
polluting system installed libs.

You might also consider an upgrade, 2.4 kernel is looking a bit tired imho.

Stef
-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Re: [bu-users] Happy Camper

[Mel S. <kd...@nw...>]

Well on the Slackware 9 box I can't compile PAX  GCC libs to old to 
handle it, But did get 3.3 up and runniong on it no problem Just wish 
3.3 had the email option that makes it nice.

-- 
System Janitor/Network Plumber http://www.nwla.com
Linux User #25446    Linux 2.6.18

Re: [bu-users] Happy Camper

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

On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 04:43:21PM -0600, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> You can run the Install script directly, but only if you have first
> run make.  This is not all platforms, not just Slackware.

Correction:  Sorry, I meant to say this is _on_ all platforms, not just
Slackware.

Re: [bu-users] Happy Camper

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

On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 04:10:12AM -0600, Mel Sojka wrote:
> Well I did resolve the Pax problem and the Cannot stat 'usleep' too a 
> bit of time searching. But the changelog for 3.0 Beta did make mention 
> of the Makefile for usleep and on a Slackware box step # one before 
> install is make. after install I did have to go to /root and do bu 
> --newrc to have an rc file. So far the only Slackware box I am having 
> trouble with is a clients critical server that is in production running 
> Slackware 9.0 Will deal with it as time goes by.

Glad you got it resolved.

In the "Installing and getting started" section of the README it does
say to run "make install".  You can run the Install script directly, but
only if you have first run make.  This is not all platforms, not just
Slackware.

FYI: 
The --newrc option will create a new .burc in your home directory no
matter directory you are in (unless you use "-c /path/filename" option),
so you don't have to cd there first.  Also, if you remove your old
~/.burc, a new one will automatically be created with default settings,
or with settings you specify on the command line, the next time you run
bu (except with the --help switch).

I curious about what the problem is on your Slackware 9.0 box.  Bu
should run on pretty much any modern Unix as long as pax is installed.

[bu-users] Happy Camper

[Mel S. <kd...@nw...>]

Well I did resolve the Pax problem and the Cannot stat 'usleep' too a 
bit of time searching. But the changelog for 3.0 Beta did make mention 
of the Makefile for usleep and on a Slackware box step # one before 
install is make. after install I did have to go to /root and do bu 
--newrc to have an rc file. So far the only Slackware box I am having 
trouble with is a clients critical server that is in production running 
Slackware 9.0 Will deal with it as time goes by.

-- 
System Janitor/Network Plumber http://www.nwla.com
Linux User #25446    Linux 2.6.18

Re: [bu-users] New to the List (pax on Slackware Linux)

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

On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 06:54:44AM -0600, Mel Sojka wrote:
> Well I have just installed BU and the install worked fine except it did 
> not create the .burc in my root directory. 

Hi Mel.

Do you mean root's home directory?  Bu always creates the .burc file in
the home directory of the user running it.  Did it say it created it?


> The OS on this end is slackware and I am having a bit of a problem.
> The log file shows in the error log PAX not found so what do I need to
> adjust. I tried to check this list archives but sourceforge seems to
> be a bit constipated this morning. Love the format if I could make it
> fly.  Mel

If you can not find a Slackware package you will have to compile it.
The source for a Linux port of pax is available on our web site in
http://hightek.org/bu/download/.

See http://hightek.org/bu/download/pax.html for more information.

I found a posting on the linuxquestions forum that indicates that
Slackware does not have a pax package if the author is correct.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?p=2533466

<extract from the posting>
  At the moment I am writing a book about UNIX Systems, that covers
  GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris ...

  For instance (just to give one example): in the UNIX standards tar has
  been deprecated for pax for a while (though, pax can work with tar
  archives, and usually provides a tar compatibility mode). Slackware
  does not even provide pax. Red Hat does, Debian does if you install
  the LSB packages.
</extract>

Re: [bu-users] New to the List

[Jorge <jfa...@on...>]

On Saturday 06 January 2007 8:54 am, Mel Sojka wrote:
>  The log file shows in the error log PAX not found so what 
>  do I need to adjust.

Hi,

You need to install pax.  On my SUSE 10.0 it is installed by default.  Check 
if you have that (which pax).

HTH,
Jorge

[bu-users] New to the List

[Mel S. <kd...@nw...>]

Well I have just installed BU and the install worked fine except it did 
not create the .burc in my root directory. The OS on this end is 
slackware and I am having a bit of a problem. The log file shows in the 
error log PAX not found so what do I need to adjust. I tried to check 
this list archives but sourceforge seems to be a bit constipated this 
morning. Love the format if I could make it fly.
Mel

-- 
System Janitor/Network Plumber http://www.nwla.com
Linux User #25446    Linux 2.6.18

Re: [bu-users] backup /var/run fails, reports nothing to backup

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

sorry for  wasting your time on
this now obvious problem
it was all caused by the default Exclude

Jack

On 9/5/06, jack byers <by...@gm...> wrote:
>
> running bu as root  trying to backup /var
> mostly succeeds, but somehow failing completely to backup /var/run
>
> repeated attempts  say nothing to to backup
> [root@bootp ~]# /home/byers/pkg/bin/bu -d /rh8b /var/run
>
> Incremental:      on
> Backup directory: /rh8b
>
> No new or changed files to back up
>
> but  /var/run still not there under /rh8b
> [root@bootp var]# pwd
> /rh8b/var
> [root@bootp var]# ls
> account  crash  db     ftp  lib    lock  named  opt       racoon  tux  yp
> cache    cvs    empty  gdm  local  log   nis    preserve  spool   www
> [root@bootp var]#
>
> my parent dir /var/run exists and is populated
>
> the error msg of original bu of entire /var
> seems to say why it failed, but i dont know what this means:
> [root@bootp bu]# cat log.060905-2.errors
> mk_parent_directories(): Error: Could not mkdir /rh8b/var.
> File exists
> [root@bootp bu]#
>
> am I missing something obvious?
> what means 'files exists'?  there is no ordinary file 'run' in  /rh8b/var
>
>  advice?
> Jack
>

[bu-users] backup /var/run fails, reports nothing to backup

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

running bu as root  trying to backup /var
mostly succeeds, but somehow failing completely to backup /var/run

repeated attempts  say nothing to to backup
[root@bootp ~]# /home/byers/pkg/bin/bu -d /rh8b /var/run

Incremental:      on
Backup directory: /rh8b

No new or changed files to back up

but  /var/run still not there under /rh8b
[root@bootp var]# pwd
/rh8b/var
[root@bootp var]# ls
account  crash  db     ftp  lib    lock  named  opt       racoon  tux  yp
cache    cvs    empty  gdm  local  log   nis    preserve  spool   www
[root@bootp var]#

my parent dir /var/run exists and is populated

the error msg of original bu of entire /var
seems to say why it failed, but i dont know what this means:
[root@bootp bu]# cat log.060905-2.errors
mk_parent_directories(): Error: Could not mkdir /rh8b/var.
File exists
[root@bootp bu]#

am I missing something obvious?
what means 'files exists'?  there is no ordinary file 'run' in  /rh8b/var

 advice?
Jack

Re: [bu-users] installed as user; bu by root works but no log

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

 Hi Vincent,
blush!,
mea culpa
all the logs for the 'missing' root logs show up
when i look in that
$bu_log_dir setting in roots~/.burc file.
[root@bootp ~]# cd /var/log/bu
[root@bootp bu]# pwd
/var/log/bu
[root@bootp bu]# ls -l
total 524
-rw-r----- 1 root root  69379 Sep  1 13:52 log.060901
-rw-r----- 1 root root    346 Sep  2 07:19 log.060902
-rw-r----- 1 root root    331 Sep  2 10:44 log.060902-1
-rw-r----- 1 root root    342 Sep  2 14:22 log.060902-2
-rw-r----- 1 root root 435826 Sep  2 14:36 log.060902-3
-rw-r----- 1 root root    295 Sep  3 07:49 log.060903
-rw-r----- 1 root root    317 Sep  3 15:29 log.060903-1
[root@bootp bu]#

that was my entire problem re the logs
I had naively assumed that since
bu was installed by user byers
then all the logs would appear under byers/pkg...

so it seems bu is working perfectly for me
both as user byers and as root


this system is a fresh install of fedora core 5,
no old 2.8 bu on it

when i run bu as root
i just use  'bu ...'
not the full path

thanks for your prompt replies
Jack





On 9/3/06, Vincent Stemen <bu...@hi...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jack.
>
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:17:04AM -0700, jack byers wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> > thanks much for your response
> >
> > i tried rebooting, no change
> > still see log file if doing the bu from user byers
> > and dont see the log file from user root
> >
> > I may not have been clear enough in first msg,
> > it is not that i see a log file on first bu
> > and none on 2nd bu
> > but consistently
> > -log file appears if run as byers
> > -log file  does not  appear if run as root
>
> I have never seen bu do this.  Are you sure you are looking in the right
> place for the log files?  Double check the $bu_log_dir setting in roots
> ~/.burc file.  Do you get any errors when you run bu?  It writes the
> logs by appending with simple redirect with append ">> $Log" in the
> script and all preceding directories are always made if they do not
> already exist.  If there were any problems writing to it you should get
> error messages.
>
> I am still suspicious of some other strange underlying system problem
> though because of those permission errors you got from _strip_ during
> installation.  You should not have gotten any such error after
> successfully installing the files there.
>
> Do you have any other machines you can install and test bu on?  That
> would confirm bu works and that you don't have a corrupt copy or
> anything.
>
> A long directory listing of the log directory of multiple bu runs in the
> same day should look something like this (from my machine).
>
> $ ll /var/log/bu/
> -rw-r-----  1 vince  wheel  -    539 Sep  3 03:20 log.060903
> -rw-r-----  1 vince  wheel  -    359 Sep  3 03:22 log.060903-1
> -rw-r-----  1 vince  wheel  -    569 Sep  3 03:22 log.060903-2
> -rw-r-----  1 vince  wheel  -    876 Sep  3 16:09 log.060903-3
>
> The default log location for a non-root user installation (if you have
> not changed ~/.burc, in the case of user, "byers") would be
>
>     ~/byers/pkg/var/log/bu
>
>
> > in the past i think i installed as root  v 2.8 i think
> >
> > so maybe i should just uninstall
> > and reinstall as root ?
>
> When you have the problem, are you running bu as root but from a user
> installation in byers home directory?  If so, are you specifying the
> whole path to bu (ie ~byers/pkg/bin/bu).  If not, are you sure there is
> not an installation of an old version of bu somewhere in your command
> path?  I did change the rc file format and the default location of the
> log files at one point, so an old version of bu might not be getting the
> location you are expecting for the log files.
>
>
> > Jack
> >
> > p.s.   not sure if I am replying correctly; it seems to be addressed
> > to you only, not the mailinig list
>
>
> Yes it was to me only.  I don't know what mailer you use, but I use mutt
> and it has a list reply option that will reply to a mailing list rather
> than the original author directly.  Perhaps yours has something similar.
>
>
> --
> Vincent Stemen
> Avoid the VeriSign/Network Solutions domain registration trap!
> Read how Network Solutions (NSI) was involved in stealing our domain name.
> http://inetaddresses.net/about_NSI.html
>

Re: [bu-users] installed as user; bu by root works but no log

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

Hi Jack.

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:17:04AM -0700, jack byers wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
> thanks much for your response
> 
> i tried rebooting, no change
> still see log file if doing the bu from user byers
> and dont see the log file from user root
> 
> I may not have been clear enough in first msg,
> it is not that i see a log file on first bu
> and none on 2nd bu
> but consistently
> -log file appears if run as byers
> -log file  does not  appear if run as root

I have never seen bu do this.  Are you sure you are looking in the right
place for the log files?  Double check the $bu_log_dir setting in roots
~/.burc file.  Do you get any errors when you run bu?  It writes the
logs by appending with simple redirect with append ">> $Log" in the
script and all preceding directories are always made if they do not
already exist.  If there were any problems writing to it you should get
error messages.  

I am still suspicious of some other strange underlying system problem
though because of those permission errors you got from _strip_ during
installation.  You should not have gotten any such error after
successfully installing the files there.

Do you have any other machines you can install and test bu on?  That
would confirm bu works and that you don't have a corrupt copy or
anything.

A long directory listing of the log directory of multiple bu runs in the
same day should look something like this (from my machine).

$ ll /var/log/bu/
-rw-r-----  1 vince  wheel  -    539 Sep  3 03:20 log.060903
-rw-r-----  1 vince  wheel  -    359 Sep  3 03:22 log.060903-1
-rw-r-----  1 vince  wheel  -    569 Sep  3 03:22 log.060903-2
-rw-r-----  1 vince  wheel  -    876 Sep  3 16:09 log.060903-3

The default log location for a non-root user installation (if you have
not changed ~/.burc, in the case of user, "byers") would be 

    ~/byers/pkg/var/log/bu


> in the past i think i installed as root  v 2.8 i think
> 
> so maybe i should just uninstall
> and reinstall as root ?

When you have the problem, are you running bu as root but from a user
installation in byers home directory?  If so, are you specifying the
whole path to bu (ie ~byers/pkg/bin/bu).  If not, are you sure there is
not an installation of an old version of bu somewhere in your command
path?  I did change the rc file format and the default location of the
log files at one point, so an old version of bu might not be getting the
location you are expecting for the log files.


> Jack
> 
> p.s.   not sure if I am replying correctly; it seems to be addressed
> to you only, not the mailinig list


Yes it was to me only.  I don't know what mailer you use, but I use mutt
and it has a list reply option that will reply to a mailing list rather
than the original author directly.  Perhaps yours has something similar.


-- 
Vincent Stemen
Avoid the VeriSign/Network Solutions domain registration trap!
Read how Network Solutions (NSI) was involved in stealing our domain name.
http://inetaddresses.net/about_NSI.html

Re: [bu-users] installed as user; bu by root works but no log

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

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:01:45PM -0700, jack byers wrote:
> [byers@bootp bu-3.4-beta]$
> byers@bootp bu]$ pwd
> /home/byers/pkg/var/log/bu
> [byers@bootp bu]$ ls
> log.060901
> [byers@bootp bu]
> only the one log file for my test case running as user byers
> 
> my other test case running as root also worked, but no log file
> 
> running   2.6.17-1.2174_FC5
> 
> near end of install a couple of error msgs:
> 
> /home/byers/pkg/libexec/bu/VERSION
> strip: unable to copy file '/home/byers/pkg/libexec/bu/usleep' reason:
> Permission denied
> strip: unable to copy file '/home/byers/pkg/libexec/bu/realpath' reason:
> Permission denied
> /home/byers/pkg/share/doc/bu-3.4-beta/...
> /home/byers/pkg/etc/bu/Include
> /home/byers/pkg/etc/bu/Enclude
> 
> Bu is now installed.
> 
> are those 2 failed  'copy'  related to missing log file?
> 
> do i have to install as root  to get log files from running bu as root?
> 
> thanks for any help, advice
> Jack

Hi Jack.

I tested again as a normal user and did not reproduce your problem.
I first thought you may have a directory that does not have write access
somewhere in the /home/byers/pkg/ tree or something, but it was
apparently able to install the files in the ~/pkg/libexec/bu directory
in order to get far enough to strip them.  The install script will abort
if there are in errors installing the files but it does not check the
return of the strip command because it assumes there are no permission
problems or it would have already aborted.  It is not getting any errors 
installing any of the files before or after the strip command, so the
install script does not detect any problem.

Not being stripped will not affect the functionality of the utilities.

I would say you may have a broken strip utility.  However, that would
not explain your getting one log file and then none after that.
Permission problems would also not explain that.  It sounds like you may
be having a lower level system problem relating to the kernel or file
system, etc.  Considering some of the strange problems we have had in
the past with Linux that were related to memory management, among other
things (part of the reason we changed to BSD several years ago), I am
going to sound like a MicroShafter here.  Try rebooting and see if the
problem goes away.  

I hope this helps.  Let me know how it goes or if you discover the
problem.


-- 
Vincent Stemen
Avoid the VeriSign/Network Solutions domain registration trap!
Read how Network Solutions (NSI) was involved in stealing our domain name.
http://inetaddresses.net/about_NSI.html

[bu-users] installed as user; bu by root works but no log

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

[byers@bootp bu-3.4-beta]$
byers@bootp bu]$ pwd
/home/byers/pkg/var/log/bu
[byers@bootp bu]$ ls
log.060901
[byers@bootp bu]
only the one log file for my test case running as user byers

my other test case running as root also worked, but no log file

running   2.6.17-1.2174_FC5

near end of install a couple of error msgs:

/home/byers/pkg/libexec/bu/VERSION
strip: unable to copy file '/home/byers/pkg/libexec/bu/usleep' reason:
Permission denied
strip: unable to copy file '/home/byers/pkg/libexec/bu/realpath' reason:
Permission denied
/home/byers/pkg/share/doc/bu-3.4-beta/...
/home/byers/pkg/etc/bu/Include
/home/byers/pkg/etc/bu/Enclude

Bu is now installed.

are those 2 failed  'copy'  related to missing log file?

do i have to install as root  to get log files from running bu as root?

thanks for any help, advice
Jack

[bu-users] wikoiCREjDIT

[Gregorio A. <gre...@ka...>]

Hi
=20
Dear home ownner,
your Best CREjDIT RAjTES online (from 3 , 5%) at
http://oketadesacesa.com
=20
  _____ =20

Dont talk. Listen. I dont know what day it is. How much time is
there to the deadline?
Well, Jim, I wouldnt worry about that if I were you-
You are not me and I am worried and answer the question or I will

Re: [bu-users] Deletions on incremental backups

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

On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 11:06:03AM +0100, Stefan Morrell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> My mind may be playing tricks, but I've convinced myself there used to be an
> option which needed setting to cause files to be deleted when incremental 
> backups were being done.
> 
> I'm using bu to do overnight "to disk" backups, so I've got essentially a hot
> spare disk I can bring up if need be, but what I don't want is accumulated 
> cruft from files no longer present on the master system.
> 
> Does this happen anyway and I've gone mad?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Stef

Hi Stef

No, there has never been an option to do that yet.  Although, it is one
the top items on my todo list for bu as soon as I can get a chance to do
some more work on it.  There has been mention of it on the mailing list
in the past.  That may be what you are remembering.

[bu-users] Deletions on incremental backups

[Stefan M. <st...@mo...>]

Hi all,

My mind may be playing tricks, but I've convinced myself there used to be an
option which needed setting to cause files to be deleted when incremental 
backups were being done.

I'm using bu to do overnight "to disk" backups, so I've got essentially a hot
spare disk I can bring up if need be, but what I don't want is accumulated 
cruft from files no longer present on the master system.

Does this happen anyway and I've gone mad?

Cheers

Stef

Re: [bu-users] Um... Pax?

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

On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 09:30:15PM +0100, Stefan Morrell wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:00:20PM -0500, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> > Oh yea, I remember you saying that before.  Just out of curiosity, do
> > you distribute it publicly?  If so what is the name of it?  If you make
> > pax available with it, perhaps I could mention it in the docs and put
> > a link to it.
> 
> It's essentially LFS, but ahm... my way :)

Ah.  I see.

 
> > If you don't come up with any other viable options and want the newer
> > one, the easiest approach would probably be to extract it from one of
> > the rpm source packages, make sure it compiles and works, and re-package
> > the source as a standard tar.gz file.  If you do that, I would be
> > interested in getting a copy from you to put on our site, or linking to
> > it on your site.
> 
> The best option currently seems to be the source package I gave the link to 
> before. As you say, most mainstream distro's have it already. It's just the
> awkward people like me who need to go the extra mile and I guess that's the
> price we pay :)

Looks like you are right.  Ok, I downloaded the Linux pax-3.4 from the
SUSE site link you provided.  Just out of curiosity, I tried compiling
it on NetBSD.  Configure completed without errors but it failed to
compile from various errors including at least one missing header.  No
big surprise there :-).  

Anyway I tried it on our Debian Linux VPS hosting site and it compiled
clean.  So I have made it available in the bu download directory.
I also added a pax note file in there explaining what pax is and making
it more obvious that it is required, so that you will see it when you go
to download bu.  

Re: [bu-users] Um... Pax?

[Stefan M. <st...@mo...>]

On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:00:20PM -0500, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> Oh yea, I remember you saying that before.  Just out of curiosity, do
> you distribute it publicly?  If so what is the name of it?  If you make
> pax available with it, perhaps I could mention it in the docs and put
> a link to it.

It's essentially LFS, but ahm... my way :)

> links to download the associated source rpm.  Of course, I don't care
> for having to deal with rpm packages for sources though.

Me neither.. in order to get rpm source code, you have to download the source
rpm, which you need rpm to unpack, so you need the rpm source code...

Any version of the rpm source I have managed to get.. doesn't build :/

> If you don't come up with any other viable options and want the newer
> one, the easiest approach would probably be to extract it from one of
> the rpm source packages, make sure it compiles and works, and re-package
> the source as a standard tar.gz file.  If you do that, I would be
> interested in getting a copy from you to put on our site, or linking to
> it on your site.

The best option currently seems to be the source package I gave the link to 
before. As you say, most mainstream distro's have it already. It's just the
awkward people like me who need to go the extra mile and I guess that's the
price we pay :)

Stef
-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Re: [bu-users] Um... Pax?

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

On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 12:30:51PM +0100, Stefan Morrell wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 11:16:08PM -0500, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> > The different linux distributions seem to use there own versioning for
> > it.  I thought most of them already included pax.  I am currently
> 
> I think Redhat and Debian do, I'm not sure about the rest. I guess SuSE does
> as the source I have was a port for SuSE.
> 
> Of course I have to be awkward and roll my own source distro :)

Oh yea, I remember you saying that before.  Just out of curiosity, do
you distribute it publicly?  If so what is the name of it?  If you make
pax available with it, perhaps I could mention it in the docs and put
a link to it.


> > Interestingly, after getting your email, I looked at the rcs id strings
> > on the Debian Linux pax, using the strings command (don't seem to have
> > the ident utility on Debian and haven't figured out what package to
> > install to get it), and it is apparently actually a pretty old version
> > from OpenBSD.  It shows "$OpenBSD: pax.c,v 1.14 1998/09/20".
> 
> I couldn't find ident on my system either, but the my version has the
> following (nearest equivalent) from "strings".
> 
> $Id: vis.c,v 1.2 2005/07/29 07:59:12 kukuk Exp $
> 
> I don't think it's a major issue and it does seem to work with the version of
> pax I've installed - you might want to mention the pax dependancy in the docs
> though, maybe with a link to source code.

I don't have a link to the source code, but it is mentioned in the bu
docs.  In the Readme, under Dependencies, it says "perl version 5.x and
pax".  Also, in the Changlog, there is a detailed explination of "Why
I chose pax", if you are interested.


> Of course finding the source code is complicated by the fact that there is a 
> set of Linux Kernel patches called PaX so search terms like "pax source linux"
> turn up a lot of stuff you didn't want - however the link I gave in my 
> previous missive should do the job.

I did a search for "pax archiver" on google, and it turned up 129,000
hits :-).  The third hit down was a link called "RPM resource /usr/bin/pax"
http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=%2Fusr%2Fbin%2Fpax
which seems to have pax binary packages for all the different
Linux distributions that use rpm, and, some of the html links in the
left column (the ones that weren't broken) take you to pages that have
links to download the associated source rpm.  Of course, I don't care
for having to deal with rpm packages for sources though.

Further down, on the google page, under the link, "Pax - POSIX File
System Archiver", there was a link for the source for the Debian port,
pax_1.5.orig.tar.gz.
http://dir.filewatcher.com/d/Debian/Other/pax_1.5.orig.tar.gz.117613.html
It is a bunch of links to mirror sites that have it.  Although the
Debian one is apparently pretty old, it still works.

You are right though, It does seem to be hard to track down
a non-distribution specific modern source package for Linux.  You could
start with the native BSD source, although, it might take some porting
to setup a makefile that works in the Linux environment.  

If you don't come up with any other viable options and want the newer
one, the easiest approach would probably be to extract it from one of
the rpm source packages, make sure it compiles and works, and re-package
the source as a standard tar.gz file.  If you do that, I would be
interested in getting a copy from you to put on our site, or linking to
it on your site.

Regards,
Vincent

-- 
Vincent Stemen
Avoid the VeriSign/Network Solutions domain registration trap!
Read how Network Solutions (NSI) was involved in stealing our domain name.
http://inetaddresses.net/about_NSI.html

Re: [bu-users] Um... Pax?

[Stefan M. <st...@mo...>]

On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 11:16:08PM -0500, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> The different linux distributions seem to use there own versioning for
> it.  I thought most of them already included pax.  I am currently

I think Redhat and Debian do, I'm not sure about the rest. I guess SuSE does
as the source I have was a port for SuSE.

Of course I have to be awkward and roll my own source distro :)

> Interestingly, after getting your email, I looked at the rcs id strings
> on the Debian Linux pax, using the strings command (don't seem to have
> the ident utility on Debian and haven't figured out what package to
> install to get it), and it is apparently actually a pretty old version
> from OpenBSD.  It shows "$OpenBSD: pax.c,v 1.14 1998/09/20".

I couldn't find ident on my system either, but the my version has the
following (nearest equivalent) from "strings".

$Id: vis.c,v 1.2 2005/07/29 07:59:12 kukuk Exp $

I don't think it's a major issue and it does seem to work with the version of
pax I've installed - you might want to mention the pax dependancy in the docs
though, maybe with a link to source code.

Of course finding the source code is complicated by the fact that there is a 
set of Linux Kernel patches called PaX so search terms like "pax source linux"
turn up a lot of stuff you didn't want - however the link I gave in my 
previous missive should do the job.

Cheers

Stef
-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.