On Monday 19 December 2005 20:35, Dan Brown wrote: >Whoops, this was meant to go to the entire list. > >Gene Heskett wrote: >> On Monday 19 December 2005 17:53, Dan Brown wrote: >>>I have recently just upgraded amanda an amanda installation from >>>2.4.4p1 and upgraded the backup host from RedHat 7.3 to Fedora FC4. >>> >>>I've also conglomerated the backed up hosts from several >>>configurations which ran independantly of each other, into a single >>>configuration which amanda will manage itself (hopefully well). >>>Other than the move of all hosts from their respective >>> configurations into one, not much else has changed. >>> >>>There is a host however in this new config whose backups magically >>>disappear after the first chunk. This host is a temporary copy of >>>the old backup host, something which will sit in the backup >>> rotation for a month or two to ensure we don't need any files off >>> of the machine before it's completely wiped out. >>>Strangely enough, level 0 backups don't want to be dumped to the >>>holding disks either. This is the mailout from amanda after the >>>backup attempt (I've removed all other hosts in order to debug >>>this). The holding disks are 150GB and 50GB in size respectively, >>>both more than enough to hold any one part of the split up disks. >> >> Ahh, but what is the value of the reserved keyword in your >> holdiingdisk definition section of your amanda.conf? >> >> By default, all holdingdisk space is reserved for incremental >> backups, which prevents it from being used for level 0's. I have >> around 25GB free there, with a reserved setting of -500m, which >> means it can use all but the last 500 megs for level 0's. > >Actually, I had initially forgotten to uncomment that a couple of > days ago and gotten the dumps rejected right away. Right now, both > the 150GB and the 50GB disks are set to be filled up to capacity > -1Gb. I also have only 30% of the disks (or is this the entire > holding disk set?) reserved for only incremental dumps. > >Do I have to set this in each holding disk definition when I have > more than one holding disk? > Yes, I believe this is a per disk definition. > >--- >Dan Brown >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should use this address: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
