On Wednesday 28 August 2002 14:30, Gene Heskett wrote: >On Wednesday 28 August 2002 13:20, Amy Tanner wrote: >>On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 01:06:37PM -0400, Gene Heskett > >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >>> It rather sounds like you need to allow more time for the >>> process to run. Thats configurable with a couple of variables >>> in your amanda.conf file, along with some explanatory test >>> describing them. >> >>I did check the dtimeout value. It was set to 3600, which seemed >> like it should be enough. I'll increase it to 7200 and see what >> happens. > >3600 certainly does seem like enough, thats ten hours!
Doh! Must have punched the wrong button, I get 1 hour=60 minutes the next time. Am I forgiven? >What about the etimeout value? Thats the amount of time allowed >forf the estimate phase's report to come back. > >>If the dump is timing out, shouldn't amanda properly kill the >> processes though? > >Thats a question for J.R.J. I'm afraid, John? > >>> >I'm using dump with hardware compression (no software >>> > compression) > > on >> >>all machines & file systems. > > The use of hardware compression >> as opposed to software compression > can also be a course of >> 'gotchas'. When hardware compression is > used, amanda doesn't >> have a very good idea how much data a tape can > hold, so you >> have to set the tape capacities conservatively, which > on big >> tapes can result in gigabytes of under utilization. >> >><snip> >> >>I've read about the advantages of software compression over >>hardware compression and I agree. I'm not the primary amanda >>administrator - I'm just filling in while he's gone and >> attempting to fix the problems - but I will make the >> recommendation to switch. >> >>Will the using hardware compression cause the dumps to take >> longer? > >Not normally because the hardware usually doubles the bandwidth > the drive can handle at its input when its on. In the real > world, software can beat that, when measured in terms of raw > input from the disks, back to raw output to the disks IF the time > to do the software compression/decompression is removed from the > timeing measurements. And thats the only fair bandwidth > comparison IMO. > >> We recently switched to hardware compression because we >> got a new tape changer. Perhaps that's the cause of the >> problems. > >Is it slower in terms of mega(or kilo)bytes/second i/o speeds? > >> These 2 machines were not having problems previously >> when we were doing software compression for everything. >> >>Thank you for your recommendations - I appreciate it. > >You're welcome. -- Cheers, Gene AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M 99.13% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
