rdiff-backup-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [rdiff-backup-users] CRC Check Failed


From: Mike Bydalek
Subject: Re: [rdiff-backup-users] CRC Check Failed
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:40:39 -0700
User-agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060309)



dean gaudet wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Mike Bydalek wrote:

  
Here's the results of that:

$ find server-root/rdiff-backup-data -type f -name \*.gz -print0 | xargs
-0r gzip --test

gzip:
server-root/rdiff-backup-data/mirror_metadata.2006-03-12T21:46:00-07:00.snapshot.gz:
unexpected end of file

Should I delete this file and re-run the backup then?
    

hmm... but no CRC error... odd... i wonder if rdiff-backup requires the 
contents of that file to regress the failed backup.
  
This may be an error in the error handling.  If you look at the original message, gzip threw an eof, but raised the IOError "CRC check failed" - false positive?
if you deleted it you might have to do further surgery on the increments 
subdir ... i'm not 100% sure what surgery would be required... but you 
*could* try something like:

	find dest/rdiff-backup-data -name '*.2006-03-12T21:46:00-07:00*' -type f -print0 | xargs -0 rm
	find dest/rdiff-backup-data -depth -name '*.2006-03-12T21:46:00-07:00*' -type d -print0 | xargs -0 rmdir
  
Well, I haven't deleted the snapshot.gz file yet, so I would like to hold off on rm(dir)'ing stuff, unless it's a last resort.  If you're sure that this will *only* delete that failed back up files, then I guess that's not too much of a loss.  Preferably I'd like to resolve this gracefully.

another option is to lose your increment history entirely -- do "rm -rf 
dest/rdiff-backup-data" and then use the rdiff-backup --force option to 
start again (it'll use the files already in the dest).  i know this method 
works... i've used it many times.

  
To be honest, I *really* don't want to do this at all.  We keep 30 days of stuff for our people, and starting over just isn't a viable option.
rdiff-backup really needs to handle this one gracefully i think ... it 
should be easy to reproduce by using "kill -9" at random times with an 
in-progress backup (which would be a good regression test anyhow).
  
I agree.  Time to fire up vmware and do some testing ;)

-Mike

reply via email to

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