* Johannes Niess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 04:01:03PM +0100)
> Gerhard den Hollander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My first thought was to disable compression, but that's already
> done. What's your network technology? 2 MBytes/sec is not the optimum
They're all local disks
(Wide scsi 2, so that's 80 Mbaud IIRC)
> On the other hand disk speed might be the bottle neck. I'd run bonnie
> on the clients and the server holding disk. I assume you've checked
> SCSI settings/errors/DMA for IDE controllers etc. of the holding disk.
Yup.
using ufsdump (of the holding disk, or any of the other disks) straight to
tape, I notice it's the tape unit that';s the bottleneck.
> Tar might be an alternative sub program for the backups, but I doubt
> it's faster.
I use both tar and ufsdump
(the biggest disk is 420G, you cannot get that on a 150G LTO tape with
ufsdump and amanda ;) )
> To me it looks like a classical search for the bottle neck.
Yup.
The dump of the 110G slice takes 10 hours,
during the last 9 that was the only thing amanda was doing, just dumping
that one slice to holding disk, and that was ~ 2.5 Mbs.
> P.S: As your company can afford that tape drive, it can afford Gigabit
> ethernet :-)
Heh heh, yeah, if only ;)
> P.P.S: What about fully switched 100TP for the clients and a 1000T??
> port for the tape server?
See above, this was all local to the tape server.
PPS thanks for all the suggestions ;)
Gerhard, (@jasongeo.com) == The Acoustic Motorbiker ==
--
__O One day a king will rise with the sun, the moon and the stars
=`\<, And you are he and you must die,
(=)/(=) To be born again, come again, live again,
once more be again the king
