[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] duply: Incrementals not shown
From: |
Florian Lindner |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] duply: Incrementals not shown |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Jan 2017 13:39:52 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 |
Hey,
Am 03.01.2017 um 12:08 schrieb edgar.soldin--- via Duplicity-talk:
> hi Florian, comment inline below
>
> On 01.01.2017 15:30, Florian Lindner via Duplicity-talk wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Everybody have a Happy New Year!
>>
>> I use duplicity though Duply on Debian Testing and have a weird problem. I
>> have two profiles, that differ only by the SOURCE setting:
>>
>> address@hidden ~ # grep -v "^#" .duply/home/conf | grep -v "^$"
>>
>> GPG_KEY='disabled'
>> GPG_PW='_GPG_PASSWORD_'
>> TARGET='scp://address@hidden:2022/Backup/home'
>> SOURCE='/home'
>> MAX_AGE=1M
>> MAX_FULLBKP_AGE=2W
>> DUPL_PARAMS="$DUPL_PARAMS --full-if-older-than $MAX_FULLBKP_AGE "
>> VOLSIZE=25
>> DUPL_PARAMS="$DUPL_PARAMS --volsize $VOLSIZE "
>> VERBOSITY=5
>>
>> The other profile works perfectly. duply status shows all backups I did.
>>
>> However, at the home profile does not show any incremental backups I did
>> after the initial full backup.
>>
>> I do a successfull incremental backup:
>>
> SNIP
>>
>>
>>
>> So everything looks ok, but:
>>
>> # duply home status
>> Start duply v1.11.3, time is 2017-01-01 15:27:29.
> SNIP
>
>> Synchronizing remote metadata to local cache...
>> Deleting local
>> /root/.cache/duplicity/duply_home/duplicity-inc.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T140824Z.manifest
>> (not authoritative at backend).
>> Deleting local
>> /root/.cache/duplicity/duply_home/duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T140824Z.sigtar.gz
>> (not authoritative at backend).
>
> see here your locally cached inremental get's deleted because duplicity does
> not seem to see it on your backend.
>
> can you browse there and check if the files really ended up there? try
> switching to the pexpect+scp:// backend and see if the error resolves.
> paramiko sometimes has issues listing files on the backend
Files on TARGET:
address@hidden /home/venus/Backup/home # ll *sig*
-rw------- 1 venus venus 661868201 31. Dez 17:21
duplicity-full-signatures.20161231T112717Z.sigtar.gz
-rw------- 1 venus venus 11327438 31. Dez 17:36
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20161231T163047Z.sigtar.gz
-rw------- 1 venus venus 11345015 31. Dez 17:45
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20161231T163906Z.sigtar.gz
-rw------- 1 venus venus 11763366 1. Jan 02:11
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T010504Z.sigtar.gz
-rw------- 1 venus venus 12878011 1. Jan 15:14
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T140824Z.sigtar.gz
-rw------- 1 venus venus 13268770 1. Jan 20:20
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T191037Z.sigtar.gz
-rw------- 1 venus venus 13271921 1. Jan 20:32
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T192657Z.sigtar.gz
-rw------- 1 venus venus 13526360 2. Jan 02:11
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170102T010504Z.sigtar.gz
-rw------- 1 venus venus 14738759 3. Jan 02:13
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170103T010511Z.sigtar.gz
-rw------- 1 venus venus 15035322 3. Jan 13:26
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170103T121953Z.sigtar.gz
The ones in the night are from the backup cronjob, the last one 13:26 is from
the backup I just did. So everything looks in order (for me).
Trying pexpect+scp:
# duply home status
[...]
Synchronizing remote metadata to local cache...
Copying duplicity-inc.20161231T112717Z.to.20161231T163047Z.manifest to local
cache.
[...]
Copying duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20161231T163047Z.sigtar.gz
to local cache.
[...]
Copying duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170103T010511Z.sigtar.gz
to local cache.
Warning, found the following local orphaned signature files:
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T192657Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T010504Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T140824Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T191037Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170103T121953Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20161231T163047Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20161231T163906Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170102T010504Z.sigtar.gz
Warning, found the following remote orphaned signature files:
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20161231T163906Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T010504Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T140824Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T191037Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170101T192657Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170102T010504Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170103T010511Z.sigtar.gz
duplicity-new-signatures.20161231T112717Z.to.20170103T121953Z.sigtar.gz
Warning, found signatures but no corresponding backup files
Last full backup date: Sat Dec 31 12:27:17 2016
Collection Status
-----------------
Connecting with backend: BackendWrapper
Archive dir: /root/.cache/duplicity/duply_home
Found 1 secondary backup chain.
Secondary chain 1 of 1:
-------------------------
Chain start time: Sat Dec 31 12:27:17 2016
Chain end time: Tue Jan 3 13:19:53 2017
Number of contained backup sets: 2
Total number of contained volumes: 1282
Type of backup set: Time: Num volumes:
Full Sat Dec 31 12:27:17 2016 1280
Incremental Tue Jan 3 13:19:53 2017 2
-------------------------
Ok, I think this is ok, because the incremental backups didn't see the previous
incremental backup. duply home cleanup --force fixed that, except
Warning, found signatures but no corresponding backup files. I will do a new
complete backup later.
So I assume everything is working fine now.
Do you have any idea why only one profile is affected while the other one, same
settings, same TARGET is not troublesome?
Anyway, big thanks to you!
Florian
Florian