From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m9RNxtPt024704 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:59:55 -0700 Received: from ciao.gmane.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id DCECA54F4F2 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id s3eMfXAtTcBBXYfa for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Kuc01-0007n8-Mx for linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:59:53 +0000 Received: from 75-134-105-39.dhcp.aldl.mi.charter.com ([75.134.105.39]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:59:53 +0000 Received: from mlueck by 75-134-105-39.dhcp.aldl.mi.charter.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:59:53 +0000 From: Michael Lueck Subject: Re: Bad day with xfsrestore, what went wrong? Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:59:50 -0400 Message-ID: References: <49063F75.7000604@sgi.com> Reply-To: mlueck@lueckdatasystems.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <49063F75.7000604@sgi.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Bill Kendall wrote: > I tried to reproduce this using the command line you supplied, but > everything worked as expected for me. Glad to hear that. Seems my tried and true syntax _can_ still work. > Perhaps try it without the -i (so that only subtrees given with -s are restored), just to rule out > the possibility that you inadvertently added all files to the restore list. Enough putzing with a production server I think. It was odd that it only put back files present in that old backup set and did not overwrite everything... thankfully! Anyway, thanks for checking / verifying my usual restore syntax that it is the correct syntax. -- Michael Lueck Lueck Data Systems http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/