I just started using amanda.
Is it normal for an incremental backup using tar to be much slower
than a full backup using tar? Here are reports for Monday and
Tuesday:
STATISTICS:
Total Full Daily
-------- -------- --------
Estimate Time (hrs:min) 0:00
Run Time (hrs:min) 1:15
Dump Time (hrs:min) 1:13 1:13 0:00
Output Size (meg) 20464.8 20464.8 0.0
Original Size (meg) 20464.8 20464.8 0.0
Avg Compressed Size (%) -- -- --
Filesystems Dumped 6 6 0
Avg Dump Rate (k/s) 4803.3 4803.3 --
Tape Time (hrs:min) 1:13 1:13 0:00
Tape Size (meg) 20465.0 20465.0 0.0
Tape Used (%) 87.1 87.1 0.0
Filesystems Taped 6 6 0
Avg Tp Write Rate (k/s) 4778.5 4778.5 --
STATISTICS:
Total Full Daily
-------- -------- --------
Estimate Time (hrs:min) 0:00
Run Time (hrs:min) 2:46
Dump Time (hrs:min) 2:44 2:44 0:00
Output Size (meg) 20129.3 20129.3 0.0
Original Size (meg) 20129.3 20129.3 0.0
Avg Compressed Size (%) -- -- --
Filesystems Dumped 6 6 0
Avg Dump Rate (k/s) 2098.3 2098.3 --
Tape Time (hrs:min) 2:39 2:39 0:00
Tape Size (meg) 20129.5 20129.5 0.0
Tape Used (%) 80.5 80.5 0.0
Filesystems Taped 6 6 0
Avg Tp Write Rate (k/s) 2158.5 2158.5 --
Both of these are actually full backups which is OK but the Tuesday
backup took twice as long as Monday. Is this expected or is there
something in the configuration I need to look at? If a differential
adds that much time, I might as well go to always-full.
I use a dumpcycle of 7 days, runspercycle is 5, and tapecycle is 6
tapes
--
-- Stephen Carville http://www.heronforge.net/~stephen/gnupgkey.txt
==============================================================
Government is like burning witches: After years of burning young
women failed to solve any of society's problems, the solution was to
burn more young women.
==============================================================
