From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CCD869536 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 09:08:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 409D511137 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 09:08:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 6FEC111126 for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 09:08:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 093684495E for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 09:08:06 +0200 (CEST) To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <526549844.77739.1598365340730.JavaMail.zimbra@zimbra.panservice.it> <756044694.61.1598368328815@webmail.proxmox.com> <817775127.98335.1598444804482.JavaMail.zimbra@zimbra.panservice.it> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: <2557d55e-0852-f429-0615-6add19f29626@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 09:07:42 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <817775127.98335.1598444804482.JavaMail.zimbra@zimbra.panservice.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.051 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.207 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] Problem with PBS and old CentOS 4.9 vm X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 07:08:08 -0000 Hi, are there any problems when you backup to a non-PBS storage? Could https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2528 be related? Am 26.08.20 um 14:26 schrieb Fabrizio Cuseo: > There is something strange.. > > Vanilla CentOS 4.9 (32 bit), backup, restore, fsck, no problem > I have copied (rsync) the content of my old centos 4.9 machine (but rsync, so the filesystem is new and clean) to the vanilla 4.9 > Backup, restore, some problems with fsck > Backup (powered off), restore, power on, reset, power on, fsck, problems with fsck > > Seems that during backup (and restore) something goes wrong with filesystem... > > The vm is on ceph with virtio drivers. > > Regards, Fabrizio > > ----- Il 25-ago-20, alle 17:12, Dietmar Maurer dietmar@proxmox.com ha scritto: > >>> I have a problem with a 4.9 centOS vm. If i restore after backup, during the >>> initial FSCK there are a lot of errors and filesystem problems. >>> >>> I have tried to: >>> - change disk from virtio to IDE >>> - backup with vm off >>> - make fsck, stop the vm, backup, and restore >>> >>> If i backup the vm powered off, when I restore it, no fsck is prompted at boot, >>> but if I reset (without any activity) the vm, again the filesystem is full of >>> errors. >>> If I reset the original VM, no problem during fsck at boot. >>> >>> If i fix the restored vm, I backup it again (powered on or off), same problem. >>> >>> So seems the the problem is making and restoring backup. >>> >>> No problem with a centOS 6.X (i am testing other OS versions). >>> >>> Some idea ? >> >> file system on centos 4.9 is buggy (old xfs version)? >