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

Amavis server client on Debian potato and woody



I'm having difficulties with the following setup:

I have a Debian Potato server with a amavis 2.4.1p1 client
Another Debian woody system is running the amavis server version 2.4.2p2

Backing up is no problem but when I try to restore using amrecover on
the potato server I cannot even get a connection to the backup server.

Whem I run:
amrecover -s backup.localdomain -t backup.localdomain -d /dev/nosst0

I get:
AMRECOVER Version 2.4.1p1. Contacting server on backup.localdomain ...
amrecover: Error connecting to server: Invalid argument

The output of /tmp/amanada/amrecover.debug is:
amrecover: debug 1 pid 8113 ruid 0 euid 0 start time Sun Nov  3 19:56:16
2002
Error connecting to server
amrecover: pid 8113 finish time Sun Nov  3 19:56:16 2002

On the backup server no logs are found of anything that tries to connect
to a daemon. I have log of the first time amrecover tried to connect to
the backup server:
Nov  2 14:27:04 backup amidxtaped[898]: connect from 10.0.0.1
Nov  2 14:27:04 backup amindexd[899]: connect from 10.0.0.1
Nov  2 14:27:04 backup identd[900]: started

The debug files at that time in /tmp give this:
amidxtaped: debug 1 pid 898 ruid 34 euid 34 start time Sat Nov  2
14:27:05 2002
amidxtaped: version 2.4.2p2
EOF reached
amidxtaped: pid 898 finish time Sat Nov  2 14:27:05 2002

amindexd: debug 1 pid 899 ruid 34 euid 34 start time Sat Nov  2 14:27:05
2002
amindexd: version 2.4.2p2
< 220 backup AMANDA index server (2.4.2p2) ready.
? unexpected EOF
amindexd: pid 899 finish time Sat Nov  2 14:27:05 2002

The whole setups should work fine. In a test environment it worked
perfectly and the only thing that changed is that now a 2.4.1p1 client
(potato) is used instead of 2.4.2p2(woody). I followed all instructions.
Doese anyone know if it is problematic to use older amavis client with a
newer amavis-server. Because I think this is a version conflict since I
cannot find anything on this subject. Any ideas?

A. Loonstra




Reply to: