Why not use software raid or LVM to concatenate the drives together into a larger volume? I've been in the same situation in the past and this worked well.
Chris Hoogendyk wrote: > So, after 3 years of pressure and inadequate backups, my one department > that never has enough money to do anything has finally bought a tape > library. I'm setting it up on the existing server, because they can't > afford the other components to set up an Amanda backup server (even > though I have a hand-me-down server with no disk drives). I've scrounged > space on a few drives for holding disk space, but there's no symmetry in > size, and the smaller ones won't do for the larger DLE's. > > So, the question is, if Amanda has more than one holding disk > (partition), and they differ in size, will Amanda know when the smaller > one is inadequate for a particular DLE and explicitly choose the larger > one? Also, if I have specified spindle numbers in my disklist, so that > Amanda will avoid doing parallel dumps from the same spindle, is there > any way of informing Amanda of the spindle numbers for the holding disks > (partitions) and taking that into account in the planning? > > For this department, at the moment, I don't have the luxery of more than > one dedicated drive for holding disk space. So, given the possible > chance of backing up a DLE to a holding disk partition that is on the > same spindle as the DLE, is it likely to work better just to rearrange > space and coalesce it on one holding disk? My idea had been to share > disks and trade part of this disk for part of another so that dumps > could be using more than one spindle for holding space. > > TIA > -- Darin Perusich Unix Systems Administrator Cognigen Corporation 395 Youngs Rd. Williamsville, NY 14221 Phone: 716-633-3463 Email: [email protected]
