On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 05:06:08PM -0800, Jay Lessert wrote: > [Posted and Cc'ed]
Why? I subscribe... :-) > My last posting on this thread, we're in tapeout crunch right now... > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:43:13PM -0800, John Oliver wrote: > > No, not really... :-) My tapes are 20GB without compression. I'm > > telling amanda to use compression. It looks like it's saying it is. > > And it is, in fact. > > > Therefore, I should be able to get *at least* 20GB on my tapes. > > You will get exactly 20GB on the tape, after Amanda compression. The tape is 20GB native, 40GB compressed. If amanda is only capable of compressing by 0%, then I would submit that its' compression algorithms either *really* suck, or simply don't work. Since I really doubt that, I would further submit that maybe amanda *isn't* compressing, after all. If you say it is, then I would appreciate an explanation of how "compressing" 20GB of data to just fit on a 20GB tape is a useful feature. <Snipped> everything else, since it's based on a debated point of order... :-) -- John Oliver, CCNA http://www.john-oliver.net/ Linux/UNIX/network consulting http://www.john-oliver.net/resume/ *** sendmail, Apache, ftp, DNS, spam filtering *** **** Colocation, T1s, web/email/ftp hosting ****
