Hello again all, [Replying to myself here to try to get the thread back on topic.]
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, G.W. Haywood wrote:
... I suspect that this is a fault in BackupPC_backupDelete ...
8<---------------------------------------------------------------------- BackupPC_backupDelete debug output: userid is redacted, NO OTHER CHANGES. The pool is on a 3TB LUKS encrypted volume which is mounted on /mnt/3TLV and /var/lib/backuppc is a symlink to /mnt/3TLV/backuppc. The function RmTreeQuietInner seems to be seeing some sort of bowdlerization of these. 8<---------------------------------------------------------------------- tornado:/var/lib/backuppc/pc/kestrel# >>> /usr/share/backuppc/bin/BackupPC_backupDelete -h kestrel -n 268 -l -s Homes XXXXX/.cache 'XXXXX/.moonchild productions' __bpc_pidStart__ 13276 BackupPC_backupDelete: $fullDelPath=[/Homes/XXXXX/.cache]; $delPathM=[/XXXXX/f.cache] BackupPC_backupDelete: removing #268/Homes/XXXXX/.cache __bpc_progress_state__ merge #268/Homes/XXXXX/.cache -> #267/Homes/XXXXX/.cache BackupPC_backupDelete: Merge into backup 267/Homes/XXXXX/.cache bpc_attrib_backwardCompat: WriteOldStyleAttribFile = 0, KeepOldAttribFiles = 0 RmTreeQuietInner: /mnt/3TLV/backuppc/pc/kestrel/268//var/lib/backuppc/pc/kestrel/268/XXXXX isn't a directory (while removing /var/lib/backuppc/pc/kestrel/268/XXXXX/f.cache) BackupPC_backupDelete: $fullDelPath=[/Homes/XXXXX/.moonchild productions]; $delPathM=[/XXXXX/f.moonchild productions] BackupPC_backupDelete: removing #268/Homes/XXXXX/.moonchild productions __bpc_progress_state__ merge #268/Homes/XXXXX/.moonchild productions -> #267/Homes/XXXXX/.moonchild productions BackupPC_backupDelete: Merge into backup 267/Homes/XXXXX/.moonchild productions RmTreeQuietInner: /mnt/3TLV/backuppc/pc/kestrel/268//var/lib/backuppc/pc/kestrel/268/XXXXX isn't a directory (while removing /var/lib/backuppc/pc/kestrel/268/XXXXX/f.moonchild productions) bpc_attrib_dirWrite: old attrib has same digest; no changes to ref counts __bpc_pidStart__ 13279 BackupPC_refCountUpdate: computing totals for host kestrel __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 0/128 bpc_attrib_backwardCompat: WriteOldStyleAttribFile = 0, KeepOldAttribFiles = 0 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 8/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 16/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 24/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 32/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 40/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 48/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 56/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 64/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 72/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 80/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 88/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 96/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 104/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 112/128 __bpc_progress_state__ sumUpdate 120/128 __bpc_progress_state__ rename total BackupPC_refCountUpdate: host kestrel got 0 errors (took 8 secs) BackupPC_refCountUpdate total errors: 0 __bpc_pidEnd__ 13279 BackupPC_backupDelete: got 0 errors __bpc_pidEnd__ 13276 8<----------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks very much to me as if a directory path was built incorrectly. Observations anyone? For the avoidance of unfairly cast doubt, the command line that I've given is verbatim except as noted carefully in my intro. In other words nothing has been changed which would make the slightest difference to someone who wanted to establish that the command I used was correct - or otherwise. If it was incorrect, I'd love to know in what way. If the tool is not to be used in this way to do what the documentation says it does, please explain why. The documentation says "You don't need to manually run these utilities." which is a long way from "You must not manually run these utilities." and in fact it goes on later to discuss manual use of some of them. (And one of them can, apparently, _only_ be run manually.)
Is [the correct way to reduce the storage used by V4] documented?
Pointers would still be most welcome. I'd like to delete some junk from the pool. Yes, it would have been nice if it hadn't got in there in the first place. But it's there now and I'd like to get rid of it.
... BackupPC appears to think that it has now used 5TB of a 3TB disc and the claimed usage is growing. ...
... and growing. It's now claiming 8.5TB used by the pool. Pretty soon the claimed pool usage will exceed the total storage used by all the hosts that are being backed up. Real partition usage is ~80%, of course it's is using nothing like the storage it claims to be using.
...the incremental backup which was started on 8th September completed in just under 8 minutes, but the one started on 9th September is still running a week later...
...now, more than a week. What's it doing? -- 73, Ged. _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list [email protected] List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
