>... I would like to know whether the size of the "tapebufs"
>variable makes a big difference in performance. ...
I'm not sure what this has to do with "Readline" as in your Subject:,
but be that as it may.
I'm sure cranking up tapebufs makes a big difference on some systems.
I thought I'd give it a try when it was added and ran some tests here.
Anything above the default *lowered* my throughput. I'm sure if I dug
into it long enough I'd find some contention going on that explains this.
But the point is, there is probably no way to tell without just plain
trying it to see what happens.
I'd leave it alone for a while on your system and get a feel for how
well Amanda does on that particular system with large images (at least
several MBytes) to tape. Then try doubling it for a few days and see
what happens. And so on.
The nice thing about this parameter is that you can't screw up. The worst
that will happen is Amanda runs a little slower. It won't do any damage
to the images being written. So you can tweak to your heart's content
(let's see, it's Thursday and I know Bob is running that big job of his
so I'll set the value to X :-).
>Lari Huttunen
John R. Jackson, Technical Software Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
