Yes thanks, this is what I do. I've had some complication running the
restore from the backup server rather than the client, but I'll worry about
that later.


On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Debra S Baddorf <[email protected]> wrote:

> one small comment inserted below
>
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:33 PM, Jon LaBadie <[email protected]>
>  wrote:
>
> > Oliver already provided good answers, I'll just add a bit.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:35:08AM +0700, Olivier Nicole wrote:
> >> Muchael,
> >>
> > ...
> >>
> >>> 3) I had figured that when restoring, amrestore has to read in a
> complete
> >>> dump/tar file before it can extract even a single file. So if I have a
> >>> single DLE that's ~2TB that fits (with multiple parts) on a single
> tape,
> >>> then to restore a single file, amrestore has to read the whole tape.
> >>> HOWEVER, I'm now testing restoring a single file from a large 2.1TB
> DLE,
> >>> and the file has been restored, but the amrecover operation is still
> >>> running, for quite some time after restoring the file. Why might this
> be
> >>> happening?
> >>
> >> Your touching the essence or tapes here: they are sequential access.
> >>
> >> So in order to access one specifi DLE on the tape, the tape has to
> >> position at the very begining of the tape and read everything until it
> >> reaches that dle (the nth file on the tape).
> >>
> >
> > Most (all?) current tape formats and drives can fast forward looking
> > for end of file marks.  Amanda knows the position of the file on the
> > tape and will have to drive go at high speed to that tape file.
> >
> > For formats like LTO, which have many tracks on the tape, I think it
> > is even faster.  I "think" a TOC records where (i.e. which track) each
> > file starts.  So it doesn't have to fast forward and back 50 times to
> > get to the "tenth" file which is on the 51st track.
> >
> >> Then it has to read sequentially all that file containing the backup of
> >> a dle to find the file(s) you want to restore. I am not sure about dump,
> >> but I am pretty sure that if your tar backup was a file on a disk
> >> instead of a file on a tape, it would read sequentially from the
> >> begining of the tar file, in a similar way.
> >>
> >> Then it has to read until the end of the tar (not sure about dump) to
> >> make sure that there is no other file(s) satisfying your extraction
> >> criteria.
> >>
> >> So yes, if the file you want to extract is at the begining of your tar,
> >> it will continue reading for a certain amount of time after the file has
> >> been extracted.
> >
> > Another reason this happens is the "append" feature of tar.  It is
> > possible that a second, later version of the same file is in the tar
> > file.  Amanda does not use this feature but tar does not know this.
> > If you see the file you want has been recovered, you can interupt
> > amrecover.
> >
> >>> The recover log shows this on the client doing the recovery:
> >>>
> >>> [root@cfile amRecoverTest_Feb_27]# tail -f
> >>> /var/log/amanda/client/jet1/amrecover.20140227135820.debug
> >>> Thu Feb 27 17:23:12 2014: thd-0x25f1590: amrecover:
> stream_read_callback:
> >>> data is still flowing
> >>>
> >>> 3a) Where is the recovered dump file written to by amrecover? I can't
> see
> >>> space being used for it on either server or client. Is it streaming and
> >>> untar'ing in memory, only writing the desired files to disk?
> >>
> > The tar file is not written to disk be amrecover.  The desired files are
> > extracted as the tarchive streams.
> >
> >> In the directory from where you started the amrecover command. With tar,
> >> it will create the same exact hierarchy, reflecting the original DLE.
> >>
> >> try:
> >>
> >> find . -name myfilename -print
> >
> > I strongly suggest you NOT use amrecover to extract directly to the
> > filesystem.  Extract them in a temporary directory and once you are
> > sure they are what you want, copy/move them to their correct location.
>
> To make this completely clear  (i.e. "restoring guide for idiots")
> -  cd  /tmp/something
> -  amrecover  .....
>
> The files will be restored into the /tmp/something  which is your current
> directory
> when you typed the amrecover command.
>
>
> >
> > ...
> >>> So assuming all the above is true, it'd be great if amdump could
> >>> automatically break large DLE's into small DLE's to end up with smaller
> >>> dump files and faster restore of individual files. Maybe it would
> happen
> >>> only for level 0 dumps, so that incremental dumps would still use the
> same
> >>> sub-DLE's used by the most recent level 0 dump.
> >
> > Sure, great idea.  Then all you would need to configure is one DLE
> > starting at "/".  Amanda would break things up into sub-DLEs.
> >
> > Nope, sorry amanda asks the backup-admin to do that part of the
> > config.  That's why you get the big bucks ;)
> >
> >>
> >>> The issue I have is that with 30TB of data, there'd be lots of manual
> >>> fragmenting of data directories to get more easily-restorable DLE's
> sizes
> >>> of say, 500GB each. Some top-level dirs in my main data drive have
> 3-6TB
> >>> each, while many others have only 100GB or so. Manually breaking these
> into
> >>> smaller DLE's once is fine, but since data gets regularly moved, added
> and
> >>> deleted, things would quickly change and upset my smaller DLE's.
> >
> > I'll bet if you try you will be able to make some logical splits.
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts on how I can approach this? If amanda can't do it, I
> thought I
> >>> might try a script to create DLE's of a desired size based on
> disk-usage,
> >>> then run the script everytime I wanted to do a new level 0 dump. That
> of
> >>> course would mean telling amanda when I wanted to do level 0's, rather
> than
> >>> amanda controlling it.
> >
> > Using a scheme like that, when it comes to recovering data, which DLE
> > was the object in last summer?  Remember that when you are asked to
> > recover some data, you will probably be under time pressure with clients
> > and bosses looking over your shoulder.  That's not the time you want
> > to fumble around trying to determine which DLE the data is in.
> >
> > Jon
> > --
> > Jon H. LaBadie                 [email protected]
> > 11226 South Shore Rd.          (703) 787-0688 (H)
> > Reston, VA  20190              (609) 477-8330 (C)
>
>
>

Reply via email to