Re: [Duplicity-talk] Error on Restoration

[edgar . soldin]

On 29.03.2014 22:03, Richi Plana wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I recently upgraded to Fedora 20 from 19 and now when I try to restore
> my backups, I'm getting errors with duplicity. Following is the
> information I have. Hope someone can help:
> 
> Versions:
> duplicity-0.6.22-5.fc20.x86_64
> librsync-0.9.7-21.fc20.x86_64
> 
> Error log:
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/bin/duplicity", line 1466, in <module>
>     with_tempdir(main)
>   File "/usr/bin/duplicity", line 1459, in with_tempdir
>     fn()
>   File "/usr/bin/duplicity", line 1393, in main
>     restore(col_stats)
>   File "/usr/bin/duplicity", line 687, in restore
>     restore_get_patched_rop_iter(col_stats)):
>   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/duplicity/patchdir.py", line 526, 
> in Write_ROPaths
>     for ropath in rop_iter:
>   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/duplicity/patchdir.py", line 499, 
> in integrate_patch_iters
>     final_ropath = patch_seq2ropath( normalize_ps( patch_seq ) )
>   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/duplicity/patchdir.py", line 479, 
> in patch_seq2ropath
>     misc.copyfileobj( current_file, tempfp )
>   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/duplicity/misc.py", line 166, in 
> copyfileobj
>     buf = infp.read(blocksize)
>   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/duplicity/librsync.py", line 80, 
> in read
>     self._add_to_outbuf_once()
>   File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/duplicity/librsync.py", line 94, 
> in _add_to_outbuf_once
>     raise librsyncError(str(e))
> librsyncError: librsync error 103 while in patch cycle
> 
> 

your backup is probably corrupt, sorry. this was fixed with 0.6.23.. 

the fix repairs the backup creation and the restore process, so that the 
restore does not die on such errors anymore. 
there is however a failure summary missing hence you should keep an eye on your 
restore log to see which files failed to restore.

you can try to restore earlier states for the corrupted file in the hope that 
the corruption happened late in a possible incremental chain.

..ede/duply.net