Hi,
[ This is my first post to this list, and it looks like "reply to all" is accepted here, so that's what I'm doing...]
Kris Vassallo wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 04:24, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
The whole thing of having the backup host being the same machine as the file server no longer looks like a good idea. However, I am in it too deep to jump out now. I suppose that I could get a second controller in the box, but to me it seems as if that would only create another bottleneck, the pci bus./On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 at 5:19pm, Kris Vassallo wrote
420GB is not the total amount per night. Something is bogging this down though and I don't know what. I am not using holding disks because the majority of data is being backed up from one set of disks to another on the same machine. This one machine has a set of RAID 10 disks. These disks are backed up by amanda and put onto a set of RAID 5 disks. As far
Just as an aside, having your backup disks on the same controller as your real data seems a bit risky to me -- what if the controller goes? What if it takes multiple disks with it?/
Why?
You have the compression done on the client anyway, so just take an older (probably Pentium II class or better) machine and use that as your Amanda server.
