--On Tuesday, July 20, 2004 14:41:43 -0700 Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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: >> >>> /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?/ >>> >> 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. > > 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. Generally true if you're using tape, but Kris is using the file driver and backing up to disk, so his backup server would probably need over a terabyte of space (to keep two fulls and the incrementals of a 400GB filesystem). Although if the backup disks could easily be moved to another box it would speed things up. Frank -- Frank Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sr. Systems Administrator Voice: 512-374-4673 Hoover's Online Fax: 512-374-4501
