PDA

View Full Version : 2.6.1p1 not accepting tapes from previous 2.6.0.p2



marozsas
May 4th, 2009, 06:25 AM
Hi,
I'm sorry if this is not the proper place for this post, but since it is a problem with the last release, I think it is the right place, mainly because there is nothing on release notes about this problem.

I was using 2.6.0.p2 on a openSuSE 10.2 system. Everything is all right.
This weekend I update Amanda to 2.6.1.p1 and it does not recognize tapes from previous version 2.6.0.p2.

amcheck returns:


Amanda Tape Server Host Check
-----------------------------
WARNING: holding disk /var/lib/amanda/holdings/diario: only 30032 MB available (30720 MB requested)
Found an empty or non-amanda tape.
(expecting tape diario-18 or a new tape)
Server check took 29.863 seconds

Amanda Backup Client Hosts Check
--------------------------------
Client check: 3 hosts checked in 1.445 seconds. 0 problems found.

(brought to you by Amanda 2.6.1p1)


Interesting is amlabel recognize the same tape:


amlabel: label diario-18 already on a tape


I have to use the force flag to get it relabeled:


[email protected]:/etc/amanda>/bin/su - amandabackup -c "/usr/sbin/amlabel -f diario diario-18"
Reading label...
Found an empty tape.
Writing label diario-18..
Checking label...
Success!
[email protected]:/etc/amanda>/bin/su - amandabackup -c "/usr/sbin/amcheck diario"
Amanda Tape Server Host Check
-----------------------------
WARNING: holding disk /var/lib/amanda/holdings/diario: only 30028 MB available (30720 MB requested)
read label `diario-18', date `X'.
NOTE: skipping tape-writable test
Tape diario-18 label ok
Server check took 0.037 seconds

Amanda Backup Client Hosts Check
--------------------------------
Client check: 3 hosts checked in 1.211 seconds. 0 problems found.

(brought to you by Amanda 2.6.1p1)


The biggest problem is if I need to recover/restore something I will be in trouble, since my 2.6.0.p2 tapes are not recognized by 2.6.1.p1;

Both versions was installed by a rpm package for openSuSE. No problems during the upgrade (rpm -Uvh).

There are any changes in label formats from 2.6.0.p2 to 2.6.1.p1 that could explain this behaviour ?
There is anything I can do to re-use my previous tapes without re-label them ?
What is the procedure to recover something in previous 2.6.0.p2 tape using the last version 2.6.1.p1 ?

thanks,

dustin
May 4th, 2009, 06:38 AM
This sounds like a problem with your block size -- were you using a non-default (32k) blocksize in 2.6.0?

marozsas
May 4th, 2009, 09:00 AM
No, I'm not. (or as far as I know, I am not using a custom block size).
Anyway, I can double check this. How can I check what is the current block size ?
I search recursively on /etc/amanda for "block|size" using grep but nothing came up.

And since I didn't remove the previous version, just upgraded using "rpm -Uvh" all previous configuration files were there, without any changes. Everything is there. Just the binaries were updated.

PS: ...and if is a block size problem, then "amlabel" wouldn't recognized the tape as "diario-18" as above, right ?

dustin
May 4th, 2009, 09:05 AM
Hmm.. can you read the existing tapes with dd?
dd if=$tapedev bs=32k count=1

marozsas
May 4th, 2009, 11:27 AM
Hmm.. can you read the existing tapes with dd?
dd if=$tapedev bs=32k count=1

No, I can't.


dd: reading `/dev/nst0': Input/output error
0+0 records in
0+0 records out
0 bytes (0 B) copied, 9.6174 s, 0.0 kB/s


and a re-labeled tape is readable, as expected:


AMANDA: TAPESTART DATE X TAPE diario-19


1+0 records in
1+0 records out
32768 bytes (33 kB) copied, 0.00723684 s, 4.5 MB/s


so, it is a block size problem ? How come ? Where I set the block size in Amanda ?

dustin
May 4th, 2009, 11:37 AM
it looks like it's either a tape/hardware problem, or you were using a large blocksize before and not now. Blocksize can be configured either with the blocksize parameter in the tapetype or using the BLOCK_SIZE device property.

Try using dd with different block sizes until you find out what your old block size was.

marozsas
May 4th, 2009, 12:27 PM
thank you, dustin. As always it is a interface problem: The interface between the chair and the keyboard.....

I will try to figure out which is the block size I am using.

In tape device definition on templates there is nothing about block size. There is just a mention about using tapetest to get the tape's length.

thanks again,