Jon and Stan thanks for your feedback! 2006/3/30, Jon LaBadie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Do you really need teh complexity of doing both virtual tapes, and > > physical tapes? The only real advantage is in speed of recovery, > > and, if you work at it hard enough, being able to recover, while a > > backup is running.
I would agree. Recovery has been a rare event here. About one a month or less. > > Sounds like your hardware is better suited to a "classic" Amanda > > set up to me. That is fine with me. I like simple :-) > I had a similar thought. You say your available hard disk space > is not sufficient to hold a full set of level 0 dumps. I think > you said that was 600GB and you had only 400GB of disk. Yes, approximately. At any rate: 'full b/u > holding disk' > In that situation, even if you spread out the dumps with incrementals > and full dumps you could not hold a single dumpcycle's worth of > dumps on the hard disk. Assuming you had a 7 day dumpcycle, you > might be able to save 3 - 4 days worth of dumps on disk. And many > incrementals would be of less value because their level 0 starting > points were already deleted. > > I suspect you would be better off using that 400GB disk for holding > disk space and saving your dumps to tape. > > What capacity is your tape? Nominally 400G, but according to 'df -h' = 367G > I would suggest that when you start your > production configuration you ease into the disklist entries (DLEs). > If you have several hosts, each with several DLEs, enter all the DLEs > into your disklist file, but comment them out with "#"s. Then before > each days' run of amdump, uncomment one or two DLEs from each host. Good strategy. We have about 40 computers each with 1-2 DLEs and a file server with 14 DLEs. Thanks and keep the advise coming, I need it :-) -- Enrico Indiogine Parasol Laboratory Texas A&M University [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-845-3937
